Lavelle v. CL West Management LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 18, 2023
Docket2:21-cv-00170
StatusUnknown

This text of Lavelle v. CL West Management LLC (Lavelle v. CL West Management LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lavelle v. CL West Management LLC, (E.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 REBECCA LAVELLE, 8 CASE NO: 2:21-CV-0170-TOR Plaintiff, 9 v. FINDINGS OF FACT AND 10 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CL WEST MANAGEMENT LLC, 11 INC.; WESTMONT HOSPITALITY GROUP EXTENDED STAY; WHG, 12 LLC; REDROOF, INC.; and HOMETOWNE STUDIOS, LLC, 13 Defendants. 14

15 The Court held a bench trial on January 17, 2023. Pro se Plaintiff Rebecca 16 Lavelle represented herself. Benjamin J. Stone appeared on behalf of Defendants. 17 The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, considered the evidence and 18 the parties’ arguments, and is fully informed. This Order supplements the Court’s 19 Oral Ruling. ECF No. 127. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), 20 below are the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. To the extent a 1 finding of fact or conclusion of law is deemed the opposite, the label the Court 2 places on the finding does not control.

3 BACKGROUND 4 This case arises out of Plaintiff’s employment with Hometowne Studios in 5 Spokane Valley, Washington. ECF No. 9 at 3. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

6 forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff’s only remaining 7 claims are for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination Employment Act 8 (“ADEA”) and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 9 ECF Nos. 40, 117. On January 4, 2023, the Court held a pretrial conference and

10 reserved ruling on Defendants’ motion in limine. ECF No. 117. 11 At the bench, the Court heard testimony from the following witnesses: 12 Tamara Butler, Nikki Maio, Jennifer Lebsack, Plaintiff, Lori Chandler, and

13 Thomas Gualano. All witnesses were cross-examined. The Court admitted into 14 evidence various exhibits, including the deposition transcript testimony of Gary 15 Sawyer. Having considered all the foregoing evidence, the Court now issues the 16 following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

17 DISCUSSION 18 I. FINDINGS OF FACT 19 The Court’s oral and written findings of fact are based on the preponderance

20 of the evidence presented at trial. 1 1. Defendant CL West Management, LLC, owns HomeTowne Suites in 2 Spokane, Washington (“HomeTowne Suites”).

3 2. On May 15, 2019, HomeTowne Suites hired Plaintiff Rebecca Lavelle as a 4 Maintenance Technician. 5 3. Plaintiff’s starting wage was $14.50 an hour. HomeTowne Suites raised her

6 rate to $14.94. 7 4. Plaintiff’s initial supervisor was General Manager Joshua Hendricks. 8 Hendricks separated from HomeTowne Suites in October 2019. 9 5. Plaintiff applied for the General Manager position, but was not selected.

10 6. In November 2019, HomeTowne Suites hired Gary Sawyer as General 11 Manager. 12 7. Plaintiff’s initial schedule to start work was at 9 AM, but Gary Sawyer

13 modified the start time to 10 AM to accommodate Plaintiff. 14 8. In December 2019, Plaintiff discovered the Maintenance Technician job 15 position was posted online. Plaintiff also learned through others that Gary Sawyer 16 called her “Ol Girl” at some point and not directly to Plaintiff.

17 9. On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff was given her first written warning 18 for failure to arrive to work on time, arriving one hour late. 19 10. Gary Sawyer did not discipline housekeepers for arriving late to work.

20 There are typically 3–5 housekeepers working on any given day. 1 11. On January 12, 2020, Mr. Sawyer documented Plaintiff again, stating 2 he “witnessed [Plaintiff] using the [General Manager’s] computer to apply for jobs

3 outside the company while clocked in which is saved in the history of the computer. 4 [Plaintiff] also was utilizing the same computer that night after [she] had clocked out 5 for the day for the same purpose.”

6 12. Improper use of company property is a violation of CL West 7 Management’s handbook policy. 8 13. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff was documented because she “failed to 9 complete the task of replacing trash bags in all containers leading to severe mess.”

10 Plaintiff testified that two garbage cans needed cleaning and that hotel was out of a 11 supply of trash bags. 12 14. On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff was documented for failing to arrive to

13 work on time. Plaintiff disputes this, stating she was at work early but was not on 14 the job because she was cleaning her son’s room and was “doing the housekeepers 15 a favor.” After cleaning her son’s room, Plaintiff did not clock into work. Plaintiff 16 testified she did not want to clock in due to the “hostile environment” and would

17 rather work without pay. 18 15. Failing to clock in for work is a violation of CL West Management’s 19 attendance policy.

20 1 16. On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff was counseled as Mr. Sawyer “was 2 informed by a tenant that let [him] know that [she had] been making several

3 unwanted advances toward them and wanted this to end.” 4 17. Fraternization is a violation of CL West Management’s policy against 5 disorderly action.

6 18. On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff was documented as she “called and Text 7 at 9:59am one minute prior to [her] 10:00 start time and stated that [she] had to find 8 a new place to live. Per our discussion on 1/19/2020 you understood any tardiness 9 would result in a termination. You did not follow the expectations given on the final

10 write up and it is now a termination.” 11 19. CL West Management required at least four hours of notice that an 12 employee would not be to work on time absent emergency circumstances.

13 20. On January 26, 2020, Plaintiff was terminated. 14 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 15 This Court has original jurisdiction of this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 16 A. Age Discrimination Employment Act

17 1. To state a claim of discrimination under the ADEA for disparate treatment, a 18 plaintiff must show that (1) she was at least forty years old, (2) she was 19 performing her job satisfactorily, (3) she was discharged, and (4) either

20 replaced by substantially younger employees with equal or inferior 1 qualifications or discharged under circumstances otherwise giving rise to an 2 inference of age discrimination. Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521

3 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 2. If satisfied, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a “legitimate, 5 nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” Becka v.

6 APCOA/Standard Parking, 146 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 111 (C.D. Cal.). If the 7 employer’s burden is satisfied, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show 8 “pretext” for the age discrimination. Id. 9 3. Evidence of discrimination may be direct or circumstantial. Messick v.

10 Horizon Indus. Inc., 62 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1995). “Direct evidence 11 of discriminatory intent consists of evidence which, if believed, proves the 12 fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption.” Mayes v.

13 WinCo Holdings, Inc., 846 F.3d 1274, 1280 (9th Cir. 2017). 14 4. Stray remarks “uttered in an ambivalent manner” and not directly tied to an 15 adverse action are insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination. Nesbit 16 v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lavelle v. CL West Management LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavelle-v-cl-west-management-llc-waed-2023.