DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the motion for summary judgment by defendant Radisson Blu Mall of America. After a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants the motion.
This employment dispute arises out of Radisson's decision to terminate pro se plaintiff Catherine Dahlberg's employment. Radisson hired Dahlberg as a front office representative on September 7, 2016. Dahlberg was responsible for checking guests in and out of the hotel and fielding guest questions and comments.
On October 12, 2016, a guest asked Dahlberg if she was from China. Dahlberg Dep. at 143:17-44:4. Dahlberg felt that the guest's manner and tone were threatening.
Dahlberg explained that she did not want to engage guests in discussions about personal matters but felt she had been cordial to the guest. Beck Aff. Ex. 5 at 1. Phan advised Dahlberg that engaging in small talk is part of working in the hospitality industry and that she needed to respond to guest questions in a friendlier manner.
The following day, Dahlberg reported to work, but requested the day off because she was still upset from the guest interaction the previous day. Dahlberg Dep. at 171:12-72:16; Kam Aff. ¶ 4. Human resources director Jennifer Wroe provided Dahlberg with an employee assistance number so she could set up counseling sessions to work through her distress over the incident. Dahlberg Dep. at 176:25-77:9; Beck Aff. Ex. 6 at 1.
When Dahlberg reported to work on Friday, October 14, Wroe asked her to meet in Wroe's office. Wroe Aff. ¶ 4; Dahlberg Dep. at 95:19-96:14, 175:4-23. The meeting did not go well. Wroe and Soulak, who was also present, were trying to determine whether Dahlberg could return to her duties, but Dahlberg would not confirm whether she was able to do so. Wroe Aff. ¶ 4; Beck Aff. Ex. 6 at 1. Dahlberg told them that the guest interaction on October 12 as "the most stressful ten seconds of her life." Wroe Aff. ¶ 4; Beck Aff. Ex. 6 at 1; Dahlberg Dep. at 184:2-8. She mimicked the guest involved in the incident and, according to Wroe, became loud and angry when doing so.
Wroe reported that Dahlberg seemed confused and acted strangely during the meeting. Wroe Aff. ¶¶ 4-6. She took several breaks, which did not seem to help.
According to Dahlberg, Wroe was hostile towards her during the meeting and told her that her "race is the reason" Wroe can treat her "like that" and that she could "treat [Dahlberg] poorly without consequences." Beck Aff. Ex. 2 at 8. At her deposition, however, Dahlberg admitted that Wroe "did not specifically use that wording" or reference Dahlberg's race or national origin. Dahlberg Dep. at 188:18-93:22. Dahlberg also admitted that Wroe did not tell Dahlberg that she could treat her "poorly."
Wroe ultimately offered Dahlberg the weekend off to regroup. Wroe Aff. ¶ 6. Dahlberg refused and left Wroe's office.
After being told she needed to go home, Dahlberg cried, used numerous tissues to wipe her face, and threw the tissues on the floor. Wroe Aff. ¶ 7. Dahlberg then announced that she could not feel her hands or feet and that she was having trouble breathing.
The following Monday, Dahlberg sent an email to Wroe asking if she should return to work. Beck Aff. Ex. 7 at 1-2. Wroe and Soulak called Dahlberg several times over the next few days to discuss matters, but she did not answer the phone.
Dahlberg did not report to work the week after the incident, despite having received an email from Radisson advising her of her shifts that week.
Dahlberg filed a charge of discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, which made a "no probable cause" determination.
On October 2, 2018, Dahlberg filed this suit alleging that Radisson discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of race and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She is seeking $3 million in damages. Radisson now moves for summary judgment.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
On a motion for summary judgment, the court views all evidence and inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Under Title VII, an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because of her race or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). Thus, in order to prevail, Dahlberg must show that race and national origin played a part in Radisson's decision to terminate her.
A plaintiff in an employment action may survive a motion for summary judgment through direct evidence "indicating unlawful discrimination, that is, evidence showing a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action."
Here, there is no direct evidence of discrimination. Although Dahlberg initially stated that Wroe and others had expressly disparaged her because she is Chinese, she has since retracted those statements and has provided no other direct evidence of discriminatory animus. The court therefore turns to whether Dahlberg has raised an inference of unlawful discrimination.
Under
Although she is a member of a protected class and suffered an adverse employment action, Dahlberg otherwise has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. First, the record establishes that she was not meeting Radisson's legitimate job expectations. As a front desk representative, Dahlberg was required to interact with hotel guests in a hospitable manner. Her guest interaction on October 12 showed that she needed additional training to meet that expectation. Radisson was willing to train her further to help her succeed, but Dahlberg's subsequent conduct made it clear that she was unable to meet Radisson's expectations. Even leaving the dramatic events of October 14 aside, Dahlberg's unwillingness thereafter to speak to Wroe or Soulak or to return to work left Radisson with little choice but to terminate her. Indeed, she effectively abandoned her job.
Second, Dahlberg has failed to establish that other similarly situated employees outside of the protected class were treated differently. There is no indication in the record that non-Chinese employees were not required to engage guests in a hospitable manner or were not terminated for failing to report to work for two weeks. Nor is there any indication that Dahlberg's ethnicity was a causal factor in her termination, despite her subjective belief to the contrary. Because the court is satisfied that Dahlberg has failed to meet her burden, Radisson is entitled to summary judgment on her discrimination claim.
Dahlberg also asserts that Radisson terminated her because she complained about the guest's questions about her ethnicity on October 12. As with a claim of discrimination, in order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, Dahlberg must show that (1) she engaged in protected conduct, (2) a reasonable employee would have found the challenged retaliatory action materially adverse, and (3) there is a causal connection between the two.
Dahlberg has failed to meet her burden. Even assuming her October 12 complaint about the guest interaction constitutes protected conduct, Dahlberg cannot establish a causal connection between that complaint and her termination. As explained above, Radisson terminated her due to numerous intervening factors unrelated to her complaint. As a result, the retaliation claim also fails as a matter of law.
Accordingly, based on the above,
1. The motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 23] is granted; and
2. The case is dismissed with prejudice.
