Hotel, Restaurant, and Travel Law A Preventative Approach - Book Report/Review Example

Case Briefs for Chapter 14 Case 14 Brock v. Best Western sundown Motel, Inc. 883 F.2d 51 (8th Cir. 1989) The case was an appeal case where Ronald and Beverly appealed the District Court’s determination, which held that the motel they owned had violated the minimum wage provisions found under the Fair Labor Standards Act (specifically section 201). The dispute before the Appellate court was to determine whether the motel was exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Court determined that should the businesses have been run separately, they would be exempted.

But the motel and restaurant were control and managed together, hence application of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court’s decision was affirmed by the appellate court.Case 14-2: Singh. v. Shoney’s, Inc. 64 F.3d 217 (5th Cir. 1995)The matter was brought to the US Court of Appeal by the Appellant, Delores Singh who had filed a complaint against her employer (former) known as Shoney’s Incorporation. She alleged she had been fired due to racial discrimination and against the US Constitution provisions and the Louisiana’s Anti-Discrimination statute.

The district court ruled in favor of Shoney’s Inc. Singh indicated that black employees were being replaced with white ones. Court of Appeal affirmed District Court’s judgment, indicating that Singh had actually committed inappropriate conduct at the workplace leading to her termination. Case 14-3: Clements v. Fitzgerald’s Mississippi, Inc. 128 Fed. Appx. 351 (Miss. 2005)Clement was the appellant in the case, and claimed that Fitzgerald’s Inc. discriminated against him because he was black, and that had more experience compared to the other person that was appointed.

Court of appeal held the District Court’s decision that Clement had indeed been discriminated upon and was therefore expected to be paid reparations in form of damages.Case 14-4: Mejia v. New York Sheraton Hotel 459 R. Supp. 375 (N.Y. 1978)The complainant in the matter before district court alleged she had been discriminated by her employer, Sheraton Hotel. She had been discharged from her position of chamber maid. The defendant asserted the only reason they discharged her from duty was the fact she violated the rules set which required the maids to stay out of the guest rooms when off duty.

After analysis of documentary and testimonial evidence, court held in favor of defendants, who were found not to have any ulterior motive when discharging Mejia.Case 14-5: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. 2005 WL 2090677 (Wash. 2005)Red Robin Gourmet Burgers hired a server. The server by the name Rangel signed and agreed to the Uniform & Appearance policy that prohibited servers to exhibit tattoos and piercing. Rangel had a tattoo that translated to some religious belief and significance.

Court held that Red Robin did not suffer in business because they had hired him six months before he was asked to cover his tattoo, and that no customer complained.Case 14-6: Jesperson v. Harrah’s Poerating Co., Inc. 444 F.3d 1104 (Nev. 2006)Jespersen had worked as a bartender for Harrah’s Operating Co. Inc. for 20 years until they implemented the Personal Best Program. The program required that workers do make-up. Jespersen thought the make-up would demean and degrade her. She claimed the program was discriminatory against women.

Court held in favor of Harrah’s, claiming that the program applied to both men and women, and did not therefore discriminate against gender. Case 14-7: Gregg v. Hay-Adams Hotel 942 F. Supp. 1 (D.C. 1996)Gregg filed the case after complaining that Clark, a person in management of Hay-Adams Hotel was sexually harassing her. She asked for about 3 million dollars in damages for her emotional distress and general losses. Court held that the hotel’s actions to give Gregg warnings before dismissal where necessary and sufficient to negate liability under Title VII.

The case was therefore dismissed without further hearing.Case 14-8: Rivera-Aponte v. Restaurant Metropol No. 3, Inc. 338 R.3d 9 (2003)Rivera worked at the restaurant named Metropol. During duty he dropped drinking glasses on Nogueras. Nogueras was injured and was attended to. The manager interviewed employees regarding the incident and fired Rivera later that day at 55 years old. Rivera alleged age discrimination under the ADEA and similar statutes. Both Court of Appeal and District Court ruled in favor of Metropol restaurant, as Rivera was found to be the aggressor.

Case 14-9: EEOC v. Marion Motel Associates 763 R. Supp. 1338 (N.C. 1991)Action was brought on behalf of Peterson Aileen, by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Aileen was a former employee of Marion Motel Associates. Plaintiff claimed sex discrimination during her employment, but resigned willfully. She claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution. She claimed she qualified to be promoted to general manager but was being sexually discriminated.

Court held in favor of defendants, claiming the plaintiff resigned voluntarily and freely.Case 14-10: EEOC v. Hacienda Hotel 881 R.2d 1504 (Ca. 1989)The EEOC brought the matter before court against the defendant, Hacienda Hotel operating in California. The hotel manager, executive house keeper and chief of engineering were alleged to be engaging in activities that were unlawful against the female employees. They were reported to be sexually harassing them, and terminating their employment when they got pregnant.

All were found to be guilty of discriminatory employment practices by the district court.Works CitedMorris Karen, Cournoyer Norman. & Marshall Anthony. Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Law: A Preventive Approach. New York: Thomson Delmar Learning. 2008. Print