ADA/Standing
1. Brito v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, 2018 WL 317464 (D. Colo., 01/08/2018). Plaintiff is a paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. While at defendant hotel he encountered multiple violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that effected his use and enjoyment of the premises and sued. The hotel challenged plaintiff’s standing. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that he suffered an injury in fact. To prove that, plaintiff must establish a likelihood that he will return to defendant’s premises. Factors a court considers are the proximity of the business to plaintiff’s residence, the plaintiff’s past patronage of the business, the definitiveness of plaintiff’s plan to return, and the plaintiff’s frequency of travel near defendant. In the complaint plaintiff stated he lives in the same county as defendant, he has frequented defendant hotel for “pleasure purposes,” he was a guest at the premises for a two day stay, and he alleges an intention to return within four months. This constitutes a personal stake in the outcome to constitute standing and avoid dismissal of the complaint.

Bankruptcy
2. In Re Lorraine Hotel 2017 LLC, 2018 WL 5288893 (N.D. Ohio, 10/22/2018). Plaintiff hotel filed a Chapter 11 petition in bankruptcy. The debtor’s sole asset was a 93-room hotel, of which 54 rooms were rentable. The debtor did not have casualty insurance covering destruction of, or damage to, the facility. The Bankruptcy Code, Section 1112(b) authorizes a judge to dismiss or convert a Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 “for cause.” Cause exists where a debtor fails to maintain appropriate insurance resulting in risk to the estate. The court stated appropriate insurance coverage is of “paramount importance” in this case because of the single asset in the estate and the status of the business as a struggling downtown hotel. The court thus dismissed the Chapter 11 case and denied conversion to Chapter 7. Instead, creditors can pursue their state remedies.

Class Action
3. Valverde v. Xclusive Staffing, Inc., et al, 2018 WL 4178532 (D. Co., 08/31/2018). Plaintiff is an employee of Omni Hotel. Per the written employment policies of the management company that operates the hotel, a $3.00 processing fee is deducted from each paycheck plaintiff and other employees receive. Plaintiff objected and seeks certification of a nationwide class of plaintiffs. Defendant objected arguing the allegations were insufficient to show that plaintiffs from other states were subject to the same policy. The court noted that defendant management company’s policies are national and controlled centrally from its Colorado headquarters. They are contained in its written employment policies used nationwide. The court thus found the evidence sufficient to certify a nationwide class.

Contracts
4. Murphy Elevator Co., Inc., v. Coco Key Hotel & Water Resort, 2018 WL 1747924 (Ohio Appls Crt, 04/11/2018). The parties had a two-year elevator maintenance contract. After the first year and a half, the hotel failed to pay. The elevator company stopped performing and sued for breach of contract. The hotel argued that it should only be liable for the unpaid moneys up to the time plaintiff stopped performing. The court rejected this argument and granted the elevator company lost profits. Noted the court, an award of damages should put the injured party in the same position it would have been in had there been no breach.

5. Stanciel v. Ramada Lansing Hotel and Conference Center, 2018 WL 842907 (Mich. Appls, 02/13/2018). Plaintiff fell when entering a hot tub at defendant hotel. Plaintiff attributes the fall to a broken support bar leading into the tub. Plaintiff sued, and the parties purportedly agreed to a settlement. Defendant prepared a written settlement agreement and submitted it to plaintiff. The documents included a “Medicare addendum.” Defendant’s attorney told plaintiff’s counsel to advise if he had a problem with any of the wording. Plaintiff returned the signed documents to defendant but unilaterally crossed out language in the addendum. Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the settlement agreement. Defendant argued the agreement was not valid because defendant was not willing to agree to the settlement without the eliminated clause. Plaintiff argued the clause that was crossed out was not an essential term of the settlement agreement so there was still a meeting of the minds on all the essential terms. The court ruled the parties did not reach an enforceable settlement agreement. Case dismissed.

6. Claris, Ltd. v. Hotel Development Services, LLC, 2018 WL 3203053 (Crt. Appls, Ohio, 06/29/18). Per contract dated 8/2005, defendant agreed to build plaintiff a 4-floor, 122 room hotel which plaintiff planned to operate as a Candlewood Suites. The construction was completed in late summer 2006. In 2013 the hotel began experiencing water penetration when rain occurred. Plaintiff’s expert witness investigated defendant’s construction work of the hotel’s walls and identified five deficiencies. The expert excluded one of the five as the cause of the water problem but did not identify the extent to which the other four may have contributed to the damage. Therefore, plaintiff failed to establish that a breach of contract by defendant caused the leakage. Thus, the court reversed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and directed a verdict for defendant.

7. Couture Hotel Corporate v. US, 2018 WL 3076847 (Crt. of Fed. Clms, 06/21/2018). Plaintiff purchased a $9 million hotel near Nellis Air Force Base intending to participate in the off-base lodging business for visitors to the base utilized when on-base lodging is full. To meet the base’s requirements, plaintiff made modifications costing in excess of $1 million. When the work was completed, defendant advised plaintiff that, due to lowered demand, it was not adding any new facilities to its overflow listings at the time. Plaintiff sued, claiming that defendant’s refusal to permit plaintiff to compete for off-base services violated the Competition in Contracting Act, various associated procurement regulations, and a contract implied-in-fact. The court held for the government finding procurement rules were not violated, and a contract-in-fact did not exist. While the government representative talked to plaintiff about prerequisites to qualify for the lodging overflow business before plaintiff purchased the facility, documents provided to plaintiff clearly stated that a prerequisite to the government signing a contract were various inspections and approvals. Said the court, “[I]n negotiations where the parties contemplate that their contractual relationship would arise by means of a written agreement, no contract can be implied.” The complaint was thus dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Default Judgment
8. Travelodge Hotels, Inc. v. Durga, LLC, 2018 WL 5307809 (D. NJ, 10/26/2018). Defendant was a franchisee of plaintiff. Defendant ceased operating and plaintiff filed suit for damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff ultimately received a default judgment. Defendant now seeks relief from that judgment. He argued his failure to defend was excusable because he was traveling the world searching for experimental medical treatments for their daughter who suffers from a rare anoxic brain injury which worsened about the time of the lawsuit. Per defendant, this search “consumed” his life. The court granted the relief, noting that the defendant’s inattention to the lawsuit was excusable given the daughter’s illness.

Eminent Domain
9. North Carolina Dept. of Transportation v. Laxmi Hotels, Inc., 2018 WL 2207793 (05/15/2018). Defendant operates a Super 8 Motel. The Department of Transportation (DOT) sought to widen and improve the street on which the hotel was located. As a result of the work, the hotel lost several parking spaces. Also, due to a 15-foot tall retaining wall installed, visibility of the facility from the nearby thoroughfares was totally lost. The DOT claims it explained the extent of the work to be performed. The hotel’s president stated the DOT assured him the hotel would not lose any parking spaces and failed to explain the height of the retaining wall. As a result of the lost parking and street visibility, the hotel claims the DOT significantly underpaid for the taking since the loss of parking and visibility severely impacted the value of the hotel. The court agreed that the DOT did not adequately inform the hotel of the extent of the taking of hotel property. The court thus ordered the DOT to provide just compensation. The case was remanded for further calculation of appropriate reimbursement for the hotel.

Employment/Actual Employer
10. Frey v. Hotel Coleman, et al, 2018 WL 4327310 (7th Cir., 2018). Plaintiff worked at a Holiday Inn Express in Algonquin, Illinois. The hotel was owned by Hotel Coleman, Inc. which hired Vaughn Hospitality, Inc. to manage the facility. Vaughn Hospitality consisted of Michael Vaughn and his wife. Plaintiff’s paychecks came from Hotel Coleman; she was trained, supervised, evaluated, assigned, etc. by Vaughn Hospitality. Plaintiff claimed Michael Vaughn sexually harassed her and she filed a claim with the EEOC. She was thereafter fired and sued Hotel Coleman and Vaughn Hospitality for retaliatory discharge. The lower court determined Vaughn Hospitality was not plaintiff’s employer and dismissed the charges against it. Following trial against Hotel Coleman, plaintiff appealed Vaughn Hospitality’s dismissal. The appeals court reviewed several factors to consider when determining who is an employer, the most important being the right to control and supervise the worker. The court vacated the ruling that Vaughn Hospitality was not a joint employer and remanded the case. In doing so the court commented that the district court will “likely” conclude that Vaughn Hospitality was plaintiff’s employer.

Interested in more? Click here to continue reading.

This article is part of our Conference Materials Library and has a PowerPoint counterpart that can be accessed in the Resource Libary.

HospitalityLawyer.com® provides numerous resources to all sponsors and attendees of The Hospitality Law Conference: Series 2.0 (Houston and Washington D.C.). If you have attended one of our conferences in the last 12 months you can access our Travel Risk Library, Conference Materials Library, ADA Risk Library, Electronic Journal, Rooms Chronicle and more, by creating an account. Our libraries are filled with white papers and presentations by industry leaders, hotel and restaurant experts, and hotel and restaurant lawyers. Click here to create an account or, if you already have an account, click here to login.

Authors

KAREN MORRIS
(585) 256-0160
Judgekaren@aol.com

Karen Morris is an elected Town Justice in Brighton New York, a Professor of Law at Monroe Community College (MCC), and an author. She was elevated to the title of Distinguished Professor, awarded by the Chancellor of the State University of New York.

She has written several textbooks including numerous editions of Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Law, the latest of which was published in 2017 by Kendall Hunt and won a Textbook Excellence Award from Text and Academic Authors Association. She also wrote two editions of New York Cases in Business Law for Cengage Publishing. In 2011, she published Law Made Fun through Harry Potter’s Adventures, and in 2017, Law Made Fun through Downton Abbey. She also co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a treatise for lawyers. She writes a column for Hotel Management Magazine entitled, Legally Speaking, and a blog for Cengage Publishing Company on the law underpinning the news.

Among the courses she has taught are Hotel and Restaurant Law, Business Law I and II, Constitutional Law, Movies and the Law, “The Michael Jackson Trial” and “O.J. Simpson 101; Understanding Our Criminal Justice System.” Her course offerings include some in traditional classroom settings and others online. She won the Excellence in Teaching Award in 1994, having been selected by her peers, and the Chancellor’s Award for Teaching Excellence in 2002, conferred by the Chancellor of the State University of New York.

DIANA S. BARBER
(404) 822-0736
dsbarber@gsu.edu
Diana@LodgeLawConsulting.com

Diana S. Barber, J.D., CHE, CWP is currently an adjunct professor teaching hospitality law and hospitality human resource management at Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA. In addition, she conducts a one-day workshop on contracting and risk management for the Events and Meeting Planning Certificate Program offered by The University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia.

In 2017, Diana became a co-author of Hospitality Law, Managing Legal Issues in the Hospitality Industry (5th Edition), along with Stephen Barth.
Ms. Barber is a recipient of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business Teaching Excellence Award in 2011 and was awarded 2011 Study Abroad Program Director of the Year by Georgia State University. In addition, Ms. Barber is the recipient of the 2010 Hospitality Faculty of the Year award and in 2012, received a Certificate of Recognition from the Career Management Center for the J. Mack Robinson College of Business. Ms. Barber is a member of Phi Beta Delta, an honor society for international scholars. Diana also completed her certification as a Certified Wedding Planner through the nationally recognized [the] Bridal Society.

Ms. Barber has recently launched a consulting/speaking company called LodgeLaw Consulting using her combined academic and hospitality legal skills; specializing in providing education to hospitality companies on preventative measures to reduce legal exposure, as well as a full range of legal services to hotels, motels, restaurants, event planning companies and private clubs. She has over thirty years of legal hospitality experience. Diana began her law practice as an associate attorney at King & Spalding in Atlanta, Georgia after graduating cum laude from Walter F. George School of Law at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia. She then spent over fourteen years with The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC serving as vice president and associate general counsel. She is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, G.A.H.A., and the Georgia Hotel & Lodging Association (“GHLA”).

But not every article of clothing constitutes a “uniform” under the FLSA. The U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) has long maintained that certain clothing, although required by the employer, is of such a character that it may be reasonably worn outside the context of work and therefore is not a uniform. Shoes are an interesting case-study.

Does The Shoe Fit?

Many hospitality employers often require employees, such as culinary department workers, to wear a certain type of shoe during work hours. Perhaps the most popular variety is the dark-colored, non-slip shoe—widely used both for their appearance and for safety reasons.

Some employers may be surprised to learn that the USDOL takes the position that these shoes do not constitute a uniform under the FLSA. As a result, employers can impose the cost of such shoes even if the cost results in the employee receiving less than the minimum wage after such deduction.

Before The Other Shoe Drops…

A word of caution before hospitality employers rush out to take advantage of this cost transfer. Experience in USDOL investigations teaches us that the agency does not give employers complete freedom regarding shoe deductions, even when it comes to dark-colored, non-slip shoes. For example, if you require employees to order a specific brand of shoe from a certain vendor when a comparable, less-expensive alternative is available, the USDOL may conclude that the shoe is no longer “basic street clothing.” The agency may reach the same conclusion if the employee already owns a pair of shoes but is told that they must order a new pair. Finally, the USDOL will be on the lookout for any ordering mechanism whereby the employer receives a fee or profit anytime an employee orders shoes through a designated vendor.

Many hospitality employers are familiar with Shoes for Crews, a manufacturer of non-slip shoes and other accessories. Shoes for Crews offers a corporate program to businesses which includes a “warranty” in the form of a $5,000 payment if an employee wearing Shoes for Crews slips at work. The USDOL finds this warranty problematic. The agency has been known to take the position in investigations that this warranty constitutes a benefit to the employer that changes the legal characteristic of the shoe such that it becomes a uniform. Thus, according to USDOL, an employer participating in this Shoes for Crews corporate program may not impose the cost of the shoe on an employee if doing so cuts into the minimum wage or overtime wages. The agency has taken this position even when an employer has never asserted a claim for the Shoes for Crews warranty payment.

Conclusion: Putting Yourself In Your Employees’ Shoes

The cost of purchasing (or cleaning) a uniform can be problematic for employers, when the cost (or part of the cost) is borne by the employee. Setting aside whether there is a legal basis for the USDOL’s position on the shoe warranty program, hospitality employers should carefully review their policies as they relate to the cost of required clothing worn by employees.

For non-slip shoes, if you have decided to pass on the cost of these shoes to employees, consider giving the employee the option of purchasing shoes at a retailer of their choice or wearing already-owned shoes which are compliant with safety requirements. This is particularly true for employers that participate in the Shoes for Crews corporate program.

For more information, contact the authors:

Andria Ryan – Partner, Atlanta office
ALureryan@fisherphillips.com
(404.240.4219)

Ted Boehm – Partner, Atlanta office
TBoehm@fisherphillips.com
(404.240.4286)

EXAMPLE #1: EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS. Though payroll companies and the Internet have made it easy to create an employee handbook, all restaurants and bars would benefit from crafting an employee handbook specific to their needs. Working with a professional who knows your company ensures a familiarity with the employee handbook that becomes invaluable when, inevitably, matters involving discipline, investigations, employee benefits, drug testing, alcohol policy, and termination arise.

EXAMPLE #2: TIP CREDIT NOTIFICATION FORMS. While the restaurant knows it is taking a tip credit in calculating a tipped employee’s wages, and the tipped employee (almost 100% of the time) knows the restaurant is taking a tip credit in calculating his or her wages, that is not enough for the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”). The regulations require that an employer specifically tell each employee about the rules regarding the tip credit – and any tip pool – in detail. While the regulations allow notification to be made orally, there is no way to prove oral communication in court. Because DOL enforcement guidelines state that the generic FLSA poster does not meet this obligation, employers should have a written tip credit and tip pooling notification policy before hiring their first tipped employee. Liability for this failure can be astronomical – up to $5.12 per hour for each hour worked by a tipped employee during the previous two years. Multiplied by two!

EXAMPLE #3: RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL SERVICE POLICIES. Most retailers are well-aware of the fact that they should only hire employees who have received certification from state alcoholic beverage commission-approved courses (or require their employees to obtain certification promptly after hire). However, in Texas, retailers can only invoke the Safe Harbor (preventing the TABC from suspending or revoking their license) in the event of a server’s TABC violation if the retailer has written policies regarding “responsible alcohol service and consumption, and ensures that each employee has read and understands these policies.” Thus, failing to include a straightforward Responsible Alcohol Service Policy for new hires to review and sign could result in significant liability down the road.

EXAMPLE #4: WAGE DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATION FORMS. The FLSA does not permit any employer to deduct an employee’s wages below the minimum wage. Many states, Texas included, only allow wage deductions (for reasons other than taxes and court-ordered garnishments) if an employee has authorized the deduction in writing. Thus, even in Texas an employer cannot legally deduct an employee’s pay for stealing company funds absent a written authorization. This makes a Wage Deduction Authorization another very simple, but very important, document to include with new hire paperwork. Notably, because an employer cannot deduct any wages below the minimum wage, that necessarily means an employer cannot make any deductions for employees that are paid $7.25 per hour or less (such as servers and bartenders). This includes branded/non-generic uniforms, cash register shortages, breakage, walkouts, etc.

EXAMPLE #5: DOCUMENT TRANSLATION. Finally, it is important to mention that even the best employee documents do nothing for an employer if the documents are not translated into a language the employee can read. If an employee cannot read the employer’s documents, the employer is treated as having no employment-related documents at all, and it cannot take advantage of numerous defenses afforded to it in all manner of employment-related disputes.