Benavidez v. Greenwich Hotel Ltd.
| Decision Date | 15 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:16-cv-191 (VAB),3:16-cv-191 (VAB) |
| Parties | EDGAR BENAVIDEZ, ALI KAZI, MARVIN CASTANEDA, IVAN PERALTA-CABRERA, LUIS VICTORIA, PATRICK DESROSIERS, ROCIO RIBEIRO, DOUGLAS MOLINA, WILLIAM ACAPANA, RODOLPHO OYARIDE, FERNANDO FAJARDO, JAIME DIAZ, ALBERTO GONZALES, KLEVER ORDONEZ, AMIR SOTO, MARCELO VILLACIS, ANGEL CAMPOVERDE, JAMES LOPEZ, IVAN P. ABRIL, MARIA JARILLO, FREDI SOTO, and NILO HUYHUA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREENWICH HOTEL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Hyatt Regency Greenwich, HYATT EQUITIES, L.L.C., and HYATT CORPORATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
On March 7, 2018, Greenwich Hotel Limited Partnership, Hyatt Equities, L.L.C., and the Hyatt Corporation (collectively, "Defendants") moved for summary judgment against Edgar Benavidez, Ali Kazi, Marvin Castaneda, Ivan Peralta-Cabrera, Luis Victoria, Patrick Desrosiers, Rocio Ribeiro, Douglas Molina, William Acapana, Rodolpho Oyaride, Fernando Fajardo, Jaime Diaz, Alberto Gonzales, Klever Ordonez, Amir Soto, Marcelo Villacis, Angel Campoverde, James Lopez, Ivan P. Abril, Maria Jarillo, Fredi Soto, and Nilo Huyhua ("Plaintiffs"). See Motion for Summary Judgment, dated Mar. 7, 2018 ("Mot. Summ. J."), ECF No. 101; Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Mot. Summ. J., dated Mar. 7, 2018 ( ), ECF No. 101-1; Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Mot. Summ. J., dated Mar. 7, 2018 ( ), ECF No. 101-2.
On April 25, 2018, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' motion. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Mot. Summ. J., dated Apr. 25, 2018 ( ), ECF No. 106-1; Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement of Facts in Opposition to Mot. Summ. J., dated Apr. 25, 2018 ( ), ECF No. 106.
For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Defendants' motion is granted with respect to the federal claims, but denied with respect to the Connecticut law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Plaintiffs have all been employed as banquet servers at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich hotel, located at 1800 East Putnam Avenue in Old Greenwich, Connecticut. First Amended Complaint, dated Sept. 19, 2016 ("Am. Compl."), ECF No. 37-3, ¶ 1. Edgar Benavidez, Ali Kazi, Marvin Castaneda, Ivan Peralta-Cabrera, Luis Victoria, Patrick Desrosiers, William Acapana, Rodolfo Oyaride, Fernando Fajardo, Jaime Diaz, Alberto Gonzales, Amir Soto, Marcelo Villacis, Angel Campoverde, James Lopez, Maria Jarillo, and Fredi Soto have all been employed by Defendants as banquet servers for at least ten years. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46-51, 54-58, 60-63, 65-66. Rocio Ribeiro, Douglas Molina, Klever Ordonez, and Nilo Huyhua have all been employed as banquet servers for at least six years. Id. ¶¶ 52, 53, 59, 67.
Plaintiffs allege that Ivan P. Abril has been employed as a banquet server at the hotel for approximately eighteen years. Id. ¶ 64. Defendants admit that he was previously employed as a banquet server, but deny that he has been employed for eighteen years. Answer to First Amended Complaint, dated Dec. 16, 2016 ("Am. Ans."), ECF NO. 62, at 14. They do not provide an alternative estimate of the length of his employment. Id.
Plaintiffs all reside in either Fairfield County, Connecticut or Westchester County, New York. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6-27.
Greenwich Hotel Limited Partnership is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Connecticut, and is the owner of the Hyatt Regency Greenwich hotel. Answer to First Amended Complaint, dated Dec. 16, 2016 ("Am. Ans."), ECF NO. 62, at 8. Hyatt Equities, L.L.C. ("Hyatt Equities") is a limited liability corporation incorporated in Delaware, and is the general partner of Greenwich Hotel Limited Partnership. Id. at 9. The Hyatt Corporation ("Hyatt Corp.") is a limited liability corporation incorporated in Delaware, and is the agent of Greenwich Hotel Limited Partnership. Id. at 9.
Plaintiffs allege that, at all relevant times, they were employees of Defendants, and were jointly employed by Defendants. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28, 40. Defendants deny that they were joint employers, and admit only that "Plaintiffs were employees of Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency Greenwich." Am. Ans. at 7.
As banquet servers, Plaintiffs have served at special events held at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich, such as conferences, weddings, and other life celebrations. Their regular duties include: "the collecting and setting up of equipment needed for the event; setting up tables; taking orders from customers; carrying trays to tables; serving food to customers; all othergeneral service that customers need and require; cleaning tables after events; breaking down the room after events; and all other work needed to physically set up events and clean up after them." Am. Compl. ¶ 76.
Three other categories of employees also have job functions related to these events: housemen, bartenders, and banquet captains. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71-85.
A houseman's regular duties include "the setting up of banquet rooms; the resetting of them to their original state after the event has concluded; and during the event, assisting banquet servers and transporting tables and equipment." Am. Compl. ¶ 77.
A bartender's regular duties include "the setting up of the bar for the event; making drinks during the event, and the breaking down of the bar after the event." Id. ¶ 78.
The parties dispute the scope of the regular duties of a banquet captain.
Plaintiffs generally allege that banquet captains "have had, and continue to have, the power to control the banquet servers, bartenders and housemen employed within the banquet department at the Hotel, including Plaintiffs." Id. ¶ 71. Plaintiffs have identified four specific individuals as banquet captains in their Amended Complaint: Dan Ridell, George Mickaiel, Dennis Carrington, and Francis Tobias. Id. ¶ 70.
Specifically, they allege that the banquet captains are "the supervisors of the banquet events and supervise the banquet servers, bartenders and housemen2 while these employees perform their work; i.e., the Captains are the bosses of these employees during the set-up of the banquets, the actual banquets, and breakdown of them." Id. ¶ 72. At pre-shift meetings, Plaintiffsallege that "the Captains advise the banquet servers and housemen of all pertinent information concerning the upcoming events including the menu." Id. ¶ 73.
Plaintiffs allege that "at pre-shift meetings, as well as during the events, the Captains assign particular tables to each banquet server, and assign various duties to banquet servers including the service of hors d'oeuvres, the cleanup of the reception area, the final work needed to set up the room, the refilling of water glasses, the supplying of bread and butter to tables, and the maintenance of candles on the tables." Id. ¶ 74. Plaintiffs also allege that "at pre-shift meetings, as well as during the events, the Captains assign the housemen duties with respect to the setting up and refreshing of the conference and food and beverage rooms." Id. ¶ 75.
Plaintiffs allege that "[t]he Captains do not perform any banquet server, houseman or bartender duties; rather, they only perform supervisor duties by which they supervise those types of employees." Id. ¶ 79. Plaintiffs also allege that "[p]rior to and after the events, the Captains occasionally have superficial, de minimus contacts with the customers; however, once the event begins the Captains do not provide any service to the customers, and have typically secluded themselves within the banquet office during the term of the banquets while the banquet servers serve the customers as needed, and the housemen and bartenders perform their regular duties." Id. ¶ 80. Plaintiffs further allege that "Captains have had the power to discipline employees, including banquet servers, bartenders and housemen, and have in fact done so by, among other things, 'writing them up', sending employees home when they are late, ordering employees to work through lunch, and punishing them by assigning them difficult tasks and to difficult events." Id. ¶ 81.
Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that "all of the Captains participate in the evaluation of employees, including Plaintiffs, by collecting the pertinent information that isneeded to assess the performance of the employees, and Ridell collects and synthesizes all the reported information with respect to the evaluation that is eventually presented to the employee." Id. ¶ 82. Plaintiffs further allege that "Captains have controlled the schedules of housemen, bartenders and banquets servers, including Plaintiffs, by among other things, setting their schedules; changing their schedules including sending employees home early from events; calling them at any time, even as late as only hours before an event is to occur, to advise then that they are not needed; and requiring housemen to work as banquet servers," id. ¶ 83, and that "[a]t least one of the Captains has had the power to approve or deny vacation requests or requests for days off for personal reasons," id. ¶ 84.
Defendants deny nearly all of these allegations as to the banquet captains' duties. See Am. Ans. at 16-19. They admit only that "[a]t pre-shift meetings, the Captains advise the banquet servers and housemen of all pertinent information concerning the upcoming events including the menu." Id. at 16 ).
The parties do not dispute that, since September 1, 2014, the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment have generally been defined according to the collective bargaining agreement between Plaintiffs' union, UNITE HERE Local 217 and the Hyatt Corporation, as an agent of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial