Jones v. Hyatt Corp.

• Decision Date: 12 December 2014
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 12-01301 MV/RHS
• Parties: SHARON JONES, Plaintiff, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, JOHN DOE CORPORATION, EUGENE MARDELL, PAMELA BEESLEY and SUZANNE FRAZIER, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

SHARON JONES, Plaintiff, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, JOHN DOE CORPORATION,EUGENE MARDELL, PAMELA BEESLEY and SUZANNE FRAZIER, Defendants.

Civ. No. 12-01301 MV/RHS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

December 12, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Hyatt Corporation ("Hyatt Tamaya"), Pamela Beesley ("Beesley"), Suzanne Frazier ("Frazier"), and Eugene Mardell's ("Mardell's") Motion for Partial Dismissal ("Motion to Dismiss") [Doc. 22], Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence Opposing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Objections") [Doc. 60], Defendants Hyatt, Beesley, Frazier, and Mardell's Motion for Summary Judgment ("First Motion for Summary Judgment") [Doc. 41],¹ and Defendants Hyatt Tamaya, Beesley, and Mardell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Second Motion for Summary Judgment") [Doc. 74]. The Court, having considered the motions, briefs, and relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that the Motion to Dismiss, Objections, and First Motion for Summary Judgment are well taken in part and therefore are granted in part and the Second Motionfor Summary Judgment is well taken and granted.

BACKGROUND²

Defendant Hyatt Tamaya operates a resort in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Hyatt Tamaya offers two full-service restaurants: The Santa Ana Café, a casual restaurant open for all-day dining seven days a week, and The Corn Maiden, a fine-dining restaurant open for dinner Tuesday through Sunday. [Doc. 41 at 5]. Plaintiff Sharon Jones ("Plaintiff") is a 74-year-old former waitress who was employed originally as a server at The Santa Ana Café and later as a server and the designated trainer at The Santa Ana Café. Hyatt Tamaya hired Plaintiff when she was 61 years old and terminated her employment on the day she turned 71 years old.

Plaintiff was one of the higher grossing servers at The Santa Ana Café, [Doc. 52-6 at 3], and was "excellent at selling the higher priced, specialty entrees because of her sales ability and connection to the guests," [Doc. 52-5 at 9, ¶ 5]. Casey Thomas, a former Assistant Restaurant Manager for The Santa Ana Café from June 2008 to May 2010, attests that Plaintiff "always went above and beyond to take care of Hyatt guests," that Thomas received "great feedback regarding [Plaintiff's] service," and that Plaintiff worked well with her shift peers and interacted well with management, [id. at 6 ¶ 4]. Sous Chef Donald Gray attests that Plaintiff was "one of the best servers that [he has] worked with in [his] twenty years of restaurant experience," and that Plaintiff "was regularly assigned a bigger section than the other servers because she was a better server and could handle more tables than the other servers," [id. at 8, ¶ 4; id. at 9, ¶ 6]. Raymond Russo, a fellow server, testified that when he worked at The Santa Ana Café, Plaintiff was, by a largemargin, the most requested server, and that guests would sometimes choose not to eat at the restaurant if Plaintiff was not available to serve them. [Doc. 52-3 at 58:8-59:1].

In January 2011, Plaintiff received an annual evaluation rating her as "meets standard." [Doc. 52-6 at 7]. The comments by Food and Beverage Manager Pam Beesley read,

Sharon is a warm and genuine person. She makes every effort to make sure her guests are taken care of in every way. She has complete knowledge of the menu and of the service standards and is an informal leader of the team. Sharon is always positive and support of her team mates (sic) and is always there to lend [an] ear and a kind word or a word of wisdom. Sharon has many regular customers who request her as their server. She has an amazing work ethic which never falters.

[Id.]. On June, 22, 2012, Beesley and Suzanne Frazier, Hyatt Tamaya's Director of Human Resources, informed Plaintiff that she was meeting expectations as a server. [Doc. 52-7 at 7].

Hyatt Tamaya has a written policy in its handbook which states that "Hyatt is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer," that Hyatt does "not discriminate on the basis of . . . age," that Hyatt "strictly prohibits and does not tolerate unlawful harassment," and that "[a]ny form of harassment related to an individual's . . . age . . . will be treated as a disciplinary matter." [Doc. 41-11 at 4; Doc. 41-10 at 12-14].

Hyatt Tamaya also has a written policy in its handbook, referred to as its "open door policy" of communication, which indicates that an employee should feel free to address any problem with his or her supervisor, and that the employee may raise the issue with the local Human Resources Department at the Hyatt Tamaya or may call Hyatt's corporate Human Resources Department in Chicago, Illinois if the employee does not feel comfortable discussing the problem with his or her supervisor. [Id. at 4]. The policy further provides that if the issue has not been resolved to the employee's satisfaction, the employee next may meet with the Hyatt Tamaya'sHuman Resources Director and finally with the Hyatt Tamaya's General Manager. [Id.]. Hyatt Tamaya server Russo, however, testified that, in contravention of its open door policy, Hyatt Tamaya discourages employees from addressing problems with the corporate Human Resources Department. [Doc. 52-3 at 52:13-25]. Specifically, Russo testified it is "just known around the hotel that you don't want to make trouble by contacting corporate, because if you do, then there would be a consequence." [Id. at 52:19-24].

Hyatt Tamaya has an unacceptable behavior policy written in its employee handbook, which provides that "[c]ommon sense and basic values provide a guide as to what is unacceptable behavior in a service business," and which lists examples of unacceptable behavior. [Doc. 41-12 at 6; Doc. 41-10 at 19]. Examples include "[f]ailure to perform work assignments satisfactorily . . . and/or efficiently," "refus[al] to obey the direct request of a manager," and "failure to follow proper procedures and/or improper check, cash or credit card handling." [Doc. 41-12 at 6-7; Doc. 41-10 at 19-21].

Violation of a Hyatt policy or procedure that may be contained in th[e] handbook, or in a house rule that is posted or otherwise communicated in the hotel, or may otherwise exist, may result in disciplinary action. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the violation, discipline may begin at any of the following steps: [c]ounseling or verbal communications[; w]ritten communications[; f]inal warning, suspension or probation[; s]eparation of employment.

[Id. at 21].

Hyatt Tamaya has a cash handing policy, which provides that "[a]ny failure to adhere to the[ cash handling policy] will result in progressive discipline," that the Hyatt Tamaya reserves the right to terminate any employee immediately or to accelerate disciplinary action when the circumstances warrant, including cases of intentional wrongdoing, and that under the policy "allcash variances of $20.00 or more will . . . result in" a verbal warning for a first offense, a written warning for a second offense, a final written warning for a third offense, a suspension for a fourth offense, and termination for a fifth offense. [Doc. 41-12 at 2]. The policy further provides that any cash variance of $100.00 or more within a 30-day period may result in suspension or termination. [Id.]. Finally, the policy indicates that it applies both to negligent and intentional violations of its terms. [Id. at 3].

In early 2010, Plaintiff approached Human Resources Manager Julie Sebelin to discuss a possible transfer to The Corn Maiden. [Doc. 41 at 6]. Sebelin informed Plaintiff there were no server positions open at that time. [Id.]. In total, Plaintiff expressed her desire to transfer to The Corn Maiden to no less than five members of Hyatt Tamaya management, including Sebelin, and approached two of these managers on at least two separate occasions. [Doc. 52-2 at 67:19-23; id. at 69:22-70:4].

In August 2010, Hyatt Tamaya posted online a notice of an opening for a part-time server at The Corn Maiden and, in response to the posting, received three applications. [Doc. 41-7 at 26:20-27:1; Doc. 41-13 at 15-32; Doc. 41-14 at 2-11]. Hyatt Tamaya maintains that it requires all applicants to apply online for open positions, that it posts all of its positions online, and that it does not allow applicants to apply for positions that are not open. [Doc. 41-7 at 10:8-9; id. at 11:18-12:10]. Plaintiff did not apply online for the August 2010 opening at The Corn Maiden. [Doc. 41-7 at 55:15-17; id. at 24:13-19].

Plaintiff likewise did not apply for her job at The Santa Ana Café online, but rather applied in person at a job fair. [Doc. 52-2 at 33:22-25]. Plaintiff testified that in August 2010, James Bass, the applicant ultimately hired for the 2010 Corn Maiden opening, applied for the position in person. [Id. at 73:13-19]. Bass, however, also subsequently applied online for The Corn Maidenposition. [Doc. 41-13 at 15-22].

On April 7, 2011, a regular customer, Dr. Craig Clatanoff, dined at The Santa Ana Café with his wife, and spoke with Kristen Guiliano, a Hyatt Tamaya manager, about the service he received from Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that Guiliano informed her that Clatanoff had indicated that Plaintiff's service was "fine" but that he wished Plaintiff had explained the gluten-free options in more detail. [Doc. 41-1 at 80:8-82:1]. Guiliano issued a written reprimand to Plaintiff, entitled "Employee Discussion Form," in which Guiliano checked the box for a "Verbal Communication," and described the incident involving Clatanoff. [Doc. 41-12 at 8]. Plaintiff was not aware at the time of the incident, and only learned after she was terminated, that Guiliano had placed a written reprimand in her file. [Id.; Doc. 41-1 at 79:19-80:5]. Plaintiff's signature is not on the reprimand, [Doc. 41-12 at 8], and Plaintiff does not recall receiving a copy of the reprimand, [Doc. 41-1 at 79:19-80:5]....