Richardson v. Hard Rock Hotel, Inc.
2:13-cv-01913
D. Nev.Jun 28, 2016Background
- Leon Richardson, an African American former floor manager, worked for HRHH Gaming Senior Mezz, LLC from 2005 until his termination in April 2012.
- Richardson received four documented disciplinary actions between 2010–2011 for policy violations involving failure to verify or document player activity; a final incident in March 2012 preceded his termination.
- Richardson alleges race discrimination (Title VII and § 1981), § 1981 hostile work environment, negligent hiring/training/supervision, defamation, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
- Two discrete racially insensitive remarks are claimed: Mancino’s 2007–08 remark recounting a customer comment, and a 2011 remark by coworker Rod Green at a Christmas party.
- Mancino emailed HR and management on March 29, 2012 describing Richardson’s alleged failure to notify a manager about large buy-ins; defendants characterize that email as a routine intra-corporate communication.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted both motions and entered judgment for defendants on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII and § 1981 discrimination (termination) | Richardson contends he was terminated because of race; points to comparator and prior passed-over promotions | Defendants argue Richardson had multiple policy violations showing unsatisfactory performance and comparator (Koelling) had fewer violations | Court: Richardson failed to establish prima facie case (no satisfactory performance; comparator not similarly situated). SJ for defendants |
| § 1981 hostile work environment | Two racially insensitive comments created abusive environment | Defendants: comments were isolated/offhand and not severe or pervasive | Court: Isolated, years-apart comments insufficient to show severe or pervasive conduct. SJ for defendants |
| Negligent hiring/training/supervision | HRHH negligently enforced policies and tolerated racial bias in management | Defendants: tort claim duplicates statutory employment remedies | Court: Nevada statute (NRS 613.330) provides exclusive remedy for employment discrimination; tort claim barred. SJ for defendants |
| Defamation / Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage | Mancino’s March 29, 2012 email was false, malicious, and intended to end Richardson’s employment / harm his economic prospects | Defendants: Email was a privileged intra-corporate communication; no evidence of malice or abuse of privilege | Court: Email was privileged; no evidence of bad faith or malice. Defamation and interference claims fail. SJ for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151 (prima facie and burden-shifting in discrimination context)
- Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201 (satisfactory performance and effect of repeated policy violations)
- Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792 (isolated comments do not create hostile work environment)
- Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368 (off-color workplace jokes insufficient for hostile environment)
- Simpson v. Mars, 929 P.2d 966 (Nevada law on intra-corporate privilege)
- Pope v. Motel 6, 114 P.3d 277 (elements of defamation under Nevada law)