Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Hostile work environment claims against Marriott reinstated

Reprints
Marriott

A federal appeals court overturned a lower court Friday and reinstated hostile work environment and retaliation claims filed by a former Marriott International Inc. worker who was terminated after complaining about how he was treated by hotel officials and fellow employees.

The plaintiff attorney in the case said the ruling is significant in delineating what constitutes a hostile work environment claim.

Gebrial Rasmy, who had worked since 1991 as a banquet server at the JW Essex House New York, which is now managed by Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International Inc., complained to company officials beginning in late 2012 that certain employees were engaging in wage theft and overcharging, according to the ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Gebrial Rasmy v. Marriott International Inc. et al.

After he began complaining to several company officials, to no avail, other employees allegedly began retaliating against him, disparaging his Coptic Christian religion, and referring to him as a rat, a mummy and a camel, among other profanity-laced insults. He was terminated by the company in May 2016.

Mr. Rasmy filed suit against the company and several employees in U.S. District Court in New York, on charges including a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The district court granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the case, which was reinstated by a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel.

“Rasmy maintains that the District Court refused to consider conduct not expressly based on race, religion, or national origin. Hence, Rasmy argues that it was an error for the District Court to conclude as a matter of law that certain Defendants calling Rasmy a ‘rat’ or allegedly filing false workspace complaints against him did not constitute discriminatory actions. We agree,” said the ruling.

“Our case law is clear that when the same individuals engage in some harassment that is explicitly discriminatory and some that is not, the entire course of conducts is relevant to a hostile work environment claim.”

Moreover, said the ruling, there are disputed material fact issues as to whether a rational jury could infer discrimination from Marriott employees “allegedly called Rasmy several names explicitly related to his religion or national origin,” said the ruling.

The ruling states also the district court concluded that Mr. Rasmy had not alleged he was physically threatened or that the claimed harassment had interfered with his job performance.

“Although the presence of physical threats or impact on job performance are relevant to finding a hostile work environment, their absence is by no means dispositive,” said the ruling.

“Rather, the overall severity and pervasiveness of discriminatory conduct must be considered…To that extent, Rasmy presented disputed issues of material facts that should be resolved by a jury, not the court.”

A jury could also conclude Mr. Rasmy was fired for complaining about unlawful discrimination, said the ruling, in vacating the lower courts’ ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Mr. Rasmy’s attorney, Stephen Bergstein, of Bergstein & Ulrich LLP in New Paltz, New York, said the ruling is significant. “It’s a nice summary of the state of law governing hostile work environment claims because it reminds us that you don’t need to allege violence to make out a hostile work environment claims,” and there can be a hostile work environment claim even on the basis of racially neutral comments.

Marriott attorney Mark A. Salomon, a partner with FordHarrison LLP in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, had no comment.

In November, two Houston oil field services companies agreed to pay nine black workers and one of their white co-workers a total of $1,225,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in a case where the agency charged the firms had subjected black oilfield workers to the pervasive use of racial slurs in the workplace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Next

  • Marriott CEO apologizes for data breach, vows improvements

    (Reuters) — Marriott International Inc. Chief Executive Arne Sorenson apologized on Thursday before a U.S. Senate panel for a massive data breach involving up to 383 million guests in its Starwood hotels reservation system and vowed to protect against future attacks.