EMANUEL M. SESSIONS,
vs. MOTEL 6,
Respondent.
) Case No. 11-5072
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on November 28, 2011, by video teleconference in Orlando and Tallahassee, Florida, before Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Respondent's representatives appeared by telephone from Carrollton, Texas.
For Petitioner: Emanuel M. Sessions, pro se
For Respondent: Dana C. Withers, Esquire,
Melinda McDaniel, Qualified Representative Accor North America, Inc.
The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Motel 6, discriminated against Petitioner, Emanuel Sessions, a/k/a Emanuel Glenn, by refusing to rent him a room at the Motel 6, Number 0791 (Motel), based on his race, African-American.
The Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) filed a Transmittal of Petition (Transmittal) with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 30, 2011. The Transmittal contained a Petition for Relief (Petition) filed by Petitioner. The Commission had previously made a determination that no cause existed under the allegations set forth in the complaint originally filed by Petitioner.
At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Petitioner did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Respondent called two witnesses, Emile Saleeb and Robert Wade, to testify. Respondent offered three exhibits into evidence, which were received without objection.
The Commission did not have the final hearing recorded either by electronic means or by court reporter. None of the parties elected to have a court reporter present. Therefore, there is no official record of the final hearing. By rule, the parties were allowed ten days from the date of final hearing to submit proposed recommended orders. To date, neither Petitioner
nor Respondent has submitted a proposed recommended order for consideration.
Petitioner is an African-American male.
The Motel is part of a national public lodging establishment chain, which is in the business of renting rooms to consumers. The Motel is located in Orange County, Florida, where the alleged act of discrimination arose.
On October 25, 2010, and for six consecutive nights, Petitioner was a guest at the Motel, registered under the name of Emanuel Glenn.1/ There were no allegations of discrimination reported between October 25, 2010, and October 31, 2010.2/ The only allegation of discrimination occurred on November 1, 2010, when Petitioner was denied a room at the Motel.
On October 31, 2010, Petitioner secured room 124 at the Motel. This room was on the ground floor, facing the parking lot. During his testimony, Petitioner failed to recollect that he had stayed at the Motel for the five nights prior to
October 31, 2010. Petitioner could not recall when he stayed at the Motel, claiming it was over a year ago, and he did not know; yet, he was adamant that, on November 1, 2010, the Motel would not rent him a room. The evidence was overwhelming that Petitioner had stayed at the Motel for six consecutive nights, beginning on October 25, 2010.
On October 31, 2010, the Motel's manager-on-duty was Emile Saleeb (Mr. Saleeb).3/ Late on October 31, 2010, Petitioner went to the Motel lobby and complained to Mr. Saleeb about a security guard questioning Petitioner as he sat in his car in the Motel's parking lot. Petitioner acted in an aggressive and offensive manner and used profanity towards
Mr. Saleeb while at least one and up to three other Motel guests were present in the lobby. Mr. Saleeb felt Petitioner caused a disturbance in the Motel's lobby, which could be categorized as aggravated misconduct on the part of a Motel guest. Mr. Saleeb had concerns for the safety and welfare of the Motel's guests as well as its employees. The Motel has a policy that anyone causing a disturbance or engaged in aggravated misconduct on the property will be placed on the do not rent (DNR) list.4/
Mr. Saleeb has the authority to place someone on the DNR list for the Motel. Based on his encounter with Petitioner on October 31, 2010, Mr. Saleeb put Petitioner's name on the Motel's DNR list. Mr. Saleeb's testimony was credible.
The following evening, on November 1, 2010, Petitioner attempted to rent another room at the Motel. At that time, Petitioner was told he would not be able to rent a room as he had been placed on the Motel's DNR list. No testimony, credible or otherwise, was offered that Petitioner was told that the refusal to rent a room to him was based on his race.
Petitioner jumped to the conclusion that he had been discriminated against because of his race. He believed he had been denied a room at the Motel because he is African-American. He filed a complaint with the Commission about the incident. In his complaint, Petitioner said that he "was told that I couldn't rent a room at Motel 6 on November 1, 2010 because of my skin color, and I have proof wich [sic] is my witness that was there with me." However, this complaint information conflicts with the information that Petitioner provided to the Motel's guest relations department on November 2, 2010. In the guest relations contact report, it was recorded that:
GST states last night, he tried to c/i to prop & was told by GSR that he cannot rent there. GST sd he asked why & was told it is based on past experience. GST asked GSR to elaborate & GSR said he had no further information. GST sd the last time he was at prop he had a room with his partner. GST sd he went to sit in his car right outside the rm to made a call to get a better signal.
While he was sitting in the car, a police officer came up to the car & opened the door & asked him why he was sitting in his car & did he have a room there. GST sd he told the officer that he did have the room right in front of the car & was making a call from the car because there was a better signal.
The officer told GST he had to go back inside his room. GST sd other people were outside their rooms. GST sd when he C/O he told GSR about the officer being rude & opening his car door. GST sd he does not understand any of this. GST said there is no reason for him to not be able to rent at property. GST said he was told he cannot
rent there last night about 11 p.m. & the man at the F/D was named Nabeel.
Petitioner did not present any witnesses to testify despite repeated opportunities to do so.
According to Robert Wade (Mr. Wade), the general manager of the Motel, his primary concern is for the safety and welfare of all the guests on his property, as well as for the safety and welfare of his employees. Mr. Wade confirmed that he is in the business of renting rooms in order to make money; the more money the business brings in, the more his bonus (and the bonuses of his employees) will be. Thus, he wants to rent rooms to customers; however, he must be able to maintain the property in a manner that customers will want to stay at the property.
Mr. Wade receives a security report every day from the security officer who was on duty the previous night. Based on this security report, Mr. Wade knows if there are broken lights on the property that need to be fixed, parking lot issues to be addressed or other maintenance issues that should be resolved to ensure the property is well maintained. Additionally, he reviews the security report to review any incidents involving Motel guests or other activities. Upon receipt of the security officer's report of October 31, 2010, Mr. Wade became aware of an incident in the parking lot involving Petitioner. Mr. Wade interviewed Mr. Saleeb and the security officer, Willie Wilson,
in order to understand the circumstances. A day later, Mr. Wade was contacted by the Motel's guest relations office regarding a complaint that Petitioner had lodged on November 2, 2011. Based on his own investigation into the facts and circumstances regarding Petitioner being placed on the Motel's DNR list,
Mr. Wade determined that it was in the best interest of the Motel that Petitioner be on the Motel's DNR list. Mr. Wade's testimony is credible.
There are other Motel guests who are on the DNR list for similar and other reasons. Those guests who are put on the Motel's DNR list based on an infraction of a Motel policy are banned from the property for one year. However, guests whose names are provided by law enforcement for the Motel's DNR list are banned for up to three years. Neither of Petitioner's names is currently on the Motel's DNR list.
During the hearing as the facts were presented, Petitioner did not appear to grasp the concept that his placement on the DNR list was a result of his encounter with the security officer in the parking lot which resulted in his loud, aggressive, and disruptive behavior in the Motel lobby in front of Mr. Saleeb and other Motel guests.
Petitioner had stayed at the Motel for six consecutive nights. Unfortunately on the sixth night, Petitioner engaged in
behavior that caused a disturbance, and he was placed on the DNR list.
Petitioner contacted the Motel's guest relations department on November 2, 2010, to complain about his inability to rent a room at the Motel on November 1, 2010. During that November 2, 2010, telephone conversation, Petitioner specifically recalled his issue with the Motel security officer. Yet during the hearing, Petitioner evaded questions about any contact with the security officer, claiming he "might have come across a security guard." Petitioner did not answer questions in a concise manner and evaded answering some questions all together. Thus, his testimony is not credible.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2011).5/
The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Act) is codified in sections 760.01 through 760.11, Florida Statutes, and section 509.092, Florida Statutes. The Act is modeled after Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42. U.S.C. section 2000, et seq. Therefore, case law interpreting Title VII is also relevant to cases brought under the Act. Fla. Dep't of Cmty. Aff. v. Bryant, 586 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Section 760.08 applies to discrimination in places of public accommodation:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this chapter, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion.
Section 509.092 applies to public lodging establishments such as the Motel's facility:
Public lodging establishments . . . are private enterprises, and the operator has the right to refuse accommodations or service to any person who is objectionable or undesirable to the operator, but such refusal may not be based upon race, creed, color, sex, physical disability, or national origin. A person aggrieved by a violation of this section or a violation of a rule adopted under this section has a right of action pursuant to s. 760.11.
Section 760.11 provides, in pertinent part:
(7) If the commission determines that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred, the commission shall dismiss the complaint. The aggrieved person may request an administrative hearing under ss. 120.569 and 120.57, but any such request must be made within 35 days of the date of determination of reasonable cause and any such hearing shall be heard by an administrative law judge and not by the commission or a commissioner. . . . If the administrative law judge finds that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred, he or she shall issue an appropriate recommended order to the
commission prohibiting the practice and recommending affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including back pay. Within 90 days of the date the recommended order is rendered, the commission shall issue a final order by adopting, rejecting, or modifying the recommended order as provided under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. . . .
Public accommodations are generally described as hotels, inns, restaurants, motion picture theaters, concert halls, stadiums, etc. The Act would apply to the Motel, a place of public accommodation. Petitioner is an African-American male and, thus, a member of a protected class.
In a discrimination case, the petitioner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,
93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). If the petitioner proves a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the respondent to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action it took. Texas Dep't of Cmty. Aff. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981). The respondent's burden is one of production, not persuasion. The burden then shifts back to the petitioner to prove that the proffered reason is pretext and that the respondent intentionally discriminated against the petitioner. Id. at 252- 256.
Petitioner has the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Motel violated his rights by refusing to rent him a room at the Motel because of his race. This is what Petitioner alleged in his complaint to the Commission.
A prima facie showing of discrimination simply requires Petitioner to show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he attempted to rent a room at a place where public accommodations are provided; (3) he was denied those services; and (4) such services remained available to similarly-situated persons outside the protected class. See, e.g., Wells v. Burger King Corp., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (N. D. Fla. 1998).
While Petitioner did prove he is a member of a protected class, he attempted to rent a room offered by the Motel, and he was denied the room, he could not establish the remaining element for a prima facie case. Petitioner was unable to rent a room based on his placement on the Motel's DNR list. There is no credible, persuasive evidence that the Motel denied him a room based solely on his race or that other persons, who were also on the DNR list, were allowed to do so.
If Petitioner had established all the points in a prima facie case, the burden would then shift to the Motel to show that the action it took, the denial of a room, was not
discriminatory but was based on other factors, one of which was Petitioner's disruptive behavior.
Under the shifting burden analysis, Petitioner would then have to provide evidence as to why the Motel's reasons were mere pretext and that the real reason for the denial was discrimination. Although this case did not get to this stage, Petitioner nevertheless provided no evidence that would apply to that element of the analysis. Petitioner caused or committed a disturbance or aggravated misconduct on the property, and the Motel's management placed Petitioner on the DNR list, thus denying Petitioner the ability to rent a room at the Motel for one year.
There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was discriminated against by the Motel or anyone affiliated with the Motel. Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof.
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Emanuel Sessions in its entirety.
DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2011.
1/ Petitioner testified that he has two legal names: Emanuel Sessions and Emanuel Glenn.
2/ Petitioner checked into and out of the Motel each day. Respondent produced, and Petitioner did not object to, the introduction of the six separate receipts reflecting the six separate rooms that Petitioner occupied from October 25, 2010, through November 1, 2010.
3/ Mr. Saleeb worked the second shift, from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., on October 31, 2010.
4/ The Motel has a number of policies for which a person could be placed on the DNR list. It includes (but is not limited to) aggressive behavior, aggravated misconduct, causing disturbances, and threatening the safety and security of other guest(s) or employee(s).
5/ All references to Florida Statutes herein shall be to the 2011 codification, unless otherwise noted.
Emanuel M. Sessions 707 Malcom Road
Dana C. Withers, Esquire Melinda McDaniel
Accor North America, Inc. 4001 International Parkway
Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
