Richardson v. Hotel Corporation of America
| Decision Date | 21 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 70-826. |
| Citation | 332 F. Supp. 519 |
| Parties | Edward RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. HOTEL CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Kendall L. Vick, John B. Wilkinson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
David Andrew Lang, New Orleans, La., for defendants.
The issue in this case is whether a hotel may lawfully discharge a bellman because, previous to his employment by the hotel, he had been convicted of theft and of receiving stolen goods. The argument that raises the issue is based on the thesis that it can be shown that more black persons than white have been convicted of serious crimes, and hence that the discharge of persons based solely on their criminal record is inherently discriminatory racially, hence violates Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
The plaintiff filed an application for employment at the Royal Sonesta Hotel at a time when the newly constructed hotel was just beginning operation. When asked on his application whether he had been convicted of a crime other than minor traffic violations, he responded in the affirmative. At this time, the hotel was hiring a large number of new employees and it could not secure police checks prior to its opening; as a result of this and a clerical error made in processing the plaintiff's application, he was hired as a bellman. As soon as his prior convictions of theft and receiving stolen goods were reported in a routine employment check, he was informed that he would not be eligible to continue as a bellman, but was offered other employment with the defendant. He refused the offer and was discharged. He was later replaced by a black bellman.
The plaintiff contends his discharge was discriminatory. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 1971, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158, supplies the basic test: Congress has required "the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification." 91 S.Ct. at 853. In Griggs the Court found that to require a high school diploma or the ability to pass a standardized general education test as a condition of employment in or transfer to certain jobs operated to disqualify Negroes at a substantially higher rate than whites. There had been no showing by the employer that there was any real relationship between this educational requirement and ability to do the job. "Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, 91 S.Ct. at 854.
The evidence here shows that the hotel rejects applicants for employment in positions it considers "security sensitive" if they have been convicted of a serious crime. Bellmen occupy one of the several positions that the hotel considers "security sensitive." They have access to guests' luggage and to guests' rooms. They are permitted to obtain room keys from the desk clerk, and even to go behind the desk for keys. They may go through hotel corridors unaccompanied without provoking inquiry. They may enter and leave the hotel by any exit during the day, carrying parcels, while most employees must use a special employees' entrance where they are subject to scrutiny by a guard, and packages are subject to inspection. Some effort is made by the Head Bellman to be aware of the whereabouts of bellmen during the day. Bellmen are expected to keep time records showing their activities. But these are not carefully scrutinized and they can of course be easily evaded: a bellman going to any specified room on a real errand might stop by another room en route without making any entry on his duty sheet.
The crucial issue therefore is whether the hotel's policy has been shown to be required by its business needs. A past criminal record affords no basis to predict that a given person will commit a future crime. But the evidence indicates that a group of persons who have been convicted of serious crimes will have a higher incidence of future criminal conduct that those who have never been convicted. It is reasonable for management of a hotel to require that persons employed in positions where they have access to valuable property of others have a record reasonably free from convictions for serious property related crimes.
Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that the policy followed with respect to the plaintiff has been followed with regard to white bellmen. Moreover, the defendant has shown that it does not exact a similar requirement of employees who do not have access to guests' property, and that it has had an exemplary record with respect to affording equal opportunity in jobs at all levels to persons who are members of minority groups. While not decisive, these factors suggest that the requirement was not intentionally invidious. Because of this, it may be concluded that the discharge of the plaintiff was not the result of an artificial, arbitrary or unnecessary barrier, but resulted instead from a genuine business need.
No federal statute prohibits discrimination per se; rather, what is prohibited is discrimination that is racially motivated. Here, no racial discrimination is shown. For these reasons it is unnecessary to accept the invitation to explore issues of whether it would be acceptable to base an employment criterion on arrest records,1 or whether conduct that does not violate Title VII might violate Section 1981. Assuming jurisdiction under either or both statutes, the plaintiff has failed to show discrimination because of race, and the defendant has established that its criteria were reasonable and related to job necessities.
Having prevailed, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hetherington v. State Personnel Bd.
...does bear a relationship to the duties of a particular occupation, such standards have been sustained. In Richardson v. Hotel Corporation of America (E.D.La.1971) 332 F.Supp. 519, a hotel bellman was properly discharged because of a prior conviction of theft, regardless of racial impact. (S......
-
Danielson v. Winnfield Funeral Home of Jefferson, Civ. A. No. 80-815.
...vexacious, or brought for harassment purposes.'" Keyes v. Lauga, 635 F.2d 330, 334 (5th Cir.1981), citing Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of America, 332 F.Supp. 519 (E.D.La.1971), aff'd 468 F.2d 951 (5th A successful defendant does not have to show bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, but mer......
-
Capers v. Long Island RR
...prohibits discrimination per se; rather, what is prohibited is discrimination that is racially motivated." Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of America, 332 F.Supp. 519, 521 (E.D.La.1971), aff'd, 468 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972); accord, Bradington v. International Business Machines Corp., 360 F.Supp. ......
-
Zarcone v. Perry
...rights here involved by the prospect of having to pay their opponent's counsel fees should they lose. Richardson v. Hotel Corporation of America, 332 F.Supp. 519 (E.D.La.1971), aff'd, 468 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972). (A fee award to a defendant's employer, was held unjustified where a claim of......
-
Employer Rules and Policies
...for excluding those with convictions of crimes involving theft or similar conduct. See, e.g., Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of Am ., 332 F. Supp. 519, 521 (E.D. La. 1971) (hotel lawfully fired bellman based on prior conviction of theft and receiving stolen goods where bellman had access to valu......
-
Privacy issues in the workplace
...Circuit has approved reasonable use of conviction records in the employment context. For example, in Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of Am., 332 F. Supp. 519 (E.D. La. 1971), aff’d, 468 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972), the court was faced with the issue of whether a hotel could lawfully discharge a bell......
-
Table of cases
...(7th Cir. 2000), §25:8.E, App. 25-2 Rice v. U. S ., 834 F. Supp. 1241 (E.D. Cal. 1993), §23:4.A.3.b Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of Am. , 332 F. Supp. 519, 521 (E.D. La. 1971), §16:3.D.2.b Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of Am. , 468 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972), §§16:3.D.2.b, 28:5.C.1.a Richardson v. M......
-
Table of cases
...(7th Cir. 2000), §25:8.E, App. 25-2 Rice v. U. S ., 834 F. Supp. 1241 (E.D. Cal. 1993), §23:4.A.3.b Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of Am. , 332 F. Supp. 519, 521 (E.D. La. 1971), §16:3.D.2.b Richardson v. Hotel Corp. of Am. , 468 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972), §§16:3.D.2.b, 28:5.C.1.a Richardson v. M......