Vazquez v. Caesar's Paradise Stream Resort
| Decision Date | 03 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-09-0625 |
| Parties | CARMELITA VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CAESAR'S PARADISE STREAM RESORT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE CAPUTO)
Plaintiff Carmelita Vazquez ("Vazquez") commenced this disparate treatment action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against her former employer, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. ("Starwood"), improperly designated as Caesar's Paradise Stream Resort ("Paradise Stream"), alleging that she was terminated from her employment because of her race/national origin. A non-jury trial was held on Vazquez's disparate treatment claim on November 21, 2011. Set forth herein are the Court's factual findings and legal conclusions pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Vazquez proved her disparate treatment claim by a preponderance of the evidence, judgment will be entered in favor of Vazquez and against Starwood.
Plaintiff Vazquez is of African-American and Hispanic descent. Vazquez was hired by Starwood in 2000 or 2001 to work at Paradise Stream as a housekeeper. Paradise Stream is a couples-only resort located in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania. Vazquez was employed by Starwood until May 28, 2007.
During the term of her employment, Vazquez was provided with a copy of Starwood's Associate Handbook. Vazquez acknowledged receipt of the Associate Handbook on orabout June 17, 2003. Among other policies and provisions, the Associate Handbook contains a provision governing the appearance of Starwood Associates. The appearance policy states:
(Appearance Policy, Ex. 4 (emphasis added).)
The appearance policy with regard to hair is written generally because it is a judgment call made by individual managers to determine what they deem conservative as opposed to otherwise. Managers at Paradise Stream worked with the human resources department and other managers to determine what standards would be applied to govern the appearance policy.
According to Jackie Manning ("Manning"), the assistant executive housekeeper at Paradise Stream, the appearance policy as applied to hair permits an employee to have individual braids, but cornrows that show the scalp are unacceptable. The perception at Paradise Stream is that a design of cornrows that shows an excessive amount of scalp is not allowed under the appearance policy and is unprofessional. Similarly, while Jenell Butz ("Butz") was a manager in different departments at Paradise Stream, her interpretation of the appearance policy was that if she could see scalp in excess in a row going back, the hairstyle was not conservative. Thus, if there were braids in the hair but the scalp was notvisible, that hairstyle was acceptable.
Vazquez was subject to discipline for violations of the appearance policy on several occasions based on the manner with which she wore her hair. For instance, in 2004, Vazquez was disciplined for wearing her hair in twists that showed the scalp. Additionally, on June 19, 2006, Vazquez received a disciplinary notice for violation of company procedure because she had braids in her hair. As a result, Vazquez was sent home and prohibited from returning to work until she spoke with an employee in the human resources department.
On other occasions when Vazquez wore braids in her hair to work she was not disciplined. On September 27, 2006 and October 3, 2006, Vazquez went to work with braids in her hair and was instructed to wear a hat. She was, however, permitted to work on both days. There were also several other occasions where Vazquez was given a hat to wear because her employer needed her to stay and work.
Vazquez was terminated from her employment with Starwood on May 28, 2007. That day, Vazquez arrived for work with braids in her hair. In the afternoon, Vazquez was instructed by Manning to come to the office with Steve Almquist ("Almquist"). Almquist informed Vazquez that he was going to write her up and send her home because of her hair. Almquist also stated that Vazquez would have to remove the braids from her hair or she would be terminated. When Vazquez indicated that she would not remove the braids, she was terminated. The Notice of Termination of Employment of Carmelita Vazquez indicates that she was discharged for a rule violation. The explanation of termination states: "Carmelita will not take out the braids in her hair." (Notice of Termination, Ex. 9.)
Other individuals employed at Paradise Stream wore braids and/or cornrows in their hair during and after Vazquez's employment with Starwood. Vazquez's daughter, Aesther Vazquez, worked at Paradise Stream for five years, and on both occasions she worecornrows she was told they had to be taken off. Aesther Vazquez took off the cornrows and put a garbage bag on her hair so her hair would not be loose. She was not sent home from work.
April Goode ("Goode"), a former dining room server at Paradise Stream, was permitted to wear her hair in cornrows or braids throughout the course of her pregnancy without being disciplined. However, on June 29, 2007, one month after Vazquez was terminated from employment, Goode received a disciplinary notice for wearing an inappropriate hairstyle. Goode was sent home and told to return for her next shift with an appropriate hairstyle. The next day, Goode returned to work with an improper hairstyle. She again received a disciplinary notice and was sent home. Goode indicated that on both occasions her hair was in braids. On July 2, 2007, Goode arrived to work wearing a scarf on her head. This was considered casual attire not permitted by the appearance policy. As a result, Goode's employment was terminated.
In 2002, Butz, who at the time was in a non-management position as a dining room server, and another dining room employee wore their hair in cornrows to work. Both Butz and the co-worker are Caucasian. Both employees were counseled about their hairstyles, and they removed the cornrows.
Amanda Weir ("Weir"), a Caucasian employee, was permitted to wear a hairstyle which showed her scalp. Vazquez characterized Weir's hair as being in cornrows. Butz described Weir's hairstyle as a french braid, which is a braid close up against the hair. Manning stated that Weir's hair was in individual braids with a ponytail with her scalp showing. Both Butz and Manning testified that Weir's hairstyle did not violate the appearance policy and that they would not have counseled Weir for that hairstyle.
Vazquez commenced this action pro se against Starwood, improperly designated as Paradise Stream, on April 6, 2009. The Complaint asserts a disparate treatment claim for race/national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII.
On January 15, 2010, Starwood filed a motion for summary judgment. Starwood's motion for summary judgment as to the disparate treatment claim was denied. However, insofar as Vazquez attempted to raise a disparate impact claim in opposition to Starwood's motion for summary judgment, the Court found that she had not asserted a disparate impact claim in the Complaint. As a result, she was not permitted to proceed on such a claim after discovery had already closed. Starwood was thus granted summary judgment on the untimely raised disparate impact claim.
Vazquez's disparate treatment claim was presented to the Court at a non-jury trial on November 21, 2011. At the close of Vazquez's case, Starwood moved for judgment pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Starwood raised three arguments in support of its Rule 52 (c) motion: (1) Vazquez failed to file her Title VII claim within ninety (90) days of receiving the right to sue notice; (2) Vazquez failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; and (3) Vazquez failed to demonstrate that her race and/or national origin were a determinative factor in her discharge. Starwood's motion regarding the latter two arguments was denied, while the motion with respect to Starwood's timeliness argument was denied without prejudice.
At the close of Starwood's case, it renewed its Rule 52© motion, specifically with regard to the timeliness claim. Starwood's renewed motion was granted because Vazquez failed to establish that the Title VII claim was filed within ninety (90) days of her receipt of the right to sue letter.
Vazquez appealed the determination that she failed to timely file the Complaint.Finding that Starwood failed to satisfy its burden of proving the affirmative defense of untimeliness, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the entry of judgment in favor of Starwood and remanded the action for further proceedings. See Vazquez v. Caesar's Paradise Stream Resort, No. 11-4411, 2013 WL 1800035 (3d Cir. Apr. 30, 2013).
After the action was remanded to this Court, Starwood filed a motion to proceed on the November 21, 2011 trial transcript. Starwood's motion was granted. However, because the parties had not previously presented closing arguments on their respective positions, closing arguments were heard on November 25, 2013. Additionall...
To continue reading
Request your trial