Ramirez v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 27, 2023·No. 2:19-cv-01174·Unknown

Opinion

1 || WENDY MEDURA KRINCEK, ESQ., Bar # 6417 KELSEY E. STEGALL, ESQ., Bar #14279 2 || LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway 3 || Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 4 || Telephone: 702.862.8800 Fax No.: 702.862.8811 5 || Email: wkrincek@littler.com kstegall@littler.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 || WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 1] TIARE RAMIREZ, an individual;, 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-01174-APG-BNW 13 vs. JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER 14 WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC; DOES I 15 || through X; and ROE Corporations XI through XX, inclusive;, 16 Defendant. 17 18 . oe, After pretrial proceedings in this case, 19 IT IS ORDERED: 20 1. 21 NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 22 This is an action for civil damages brought by Plaintiff Tiare Ramirez (‘Plaintiff’), under the 23 FMLA, ADA, NRS 613.330, NRS 613.340 and common law against Defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC 24 (hereinafter “WLV” or “Defendant’’). 25 Consistent with this Court’s Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion for 26 Summary Judgment, the claims proceeding to trial are: FMLA Interference; Disparate Treatment under 27 the ADA and analogous Nevada law; Retaliation under the ADA and analogous Nevada law; and 28

1 || Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision. (See ECF No. 77). 2 CONTENTION OF PARTIES 3 || PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS 4 Defendant Wynn Las Vegas wrongfully terminated a founding Wynn cocktail server, single 5 || mother, and committed employee Tiare Ramirez. Defendant’s errant suspension of Plaintiff and its 6 || doubling-down despite readily available exculpatory evidence revealing she properly utilized protected 7 || FMLA leave when she experienced a flare up of her serious medical condition. Instead of admitting its 8 || mistake, instead of seeking clarification, and instead of following the law, Wynn terminated the 10-year 9 || employee for alleged “willful misconduct, dishonesty, and misuse of FMLA/ADA.” As confirmed by 10 || this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 77), Plaintiff maintains 11 || claim against Defendant for FMLA Interference, ADA & NRS § 613.330 disparate treatment, ADA & 12 || NRS § 613.340 retaliation, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision. Plaintiff seeks all available 13 || relief under our law including but not limited to lost wages, compensatory damages, emotional distress 14 || damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, equitable relief, reinstatement with 15 || seniority, expungement of negative information in personnel file, declaratory relief, costs, and attorneys’ 16 || fees. 17 || DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS 18 WLYV denies the allegations in their entirety and Plaintiff's version of the facts. Specifically, 19 || WLV denies that it violated the FMLA because WLV did not interfere with any of Plaintiff's FMLA 20 || leaves. WLV conducted a good faith investigation determining that Plaintiff misused her FMLA leave, 21 || resulting in her termination solely based on her misuse. Moreover, WLV denies that it violated the ADA 22 || because Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, Plaintiff is not a qualified individual 23 || with a disability, and Plaintiff was not terminated because of her alleged disability. Similarly, WLV did 24 || not retaliate against Plaintiff due to her alleged disability. WLV also adequately trains its employees on 25 || the FMLA and ADA policies, and because of this, WLV denies that it negligently hired, trained, and 26 || supervised its employees. 27 28 2.

1 Il. 2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 3 Jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 29 U.S.C. 4 || § 2617(a)(2), and 42 U.S.C. 24 § 12117(a) because the lawsuit asserts claims under federal law and seeks 5 || to recover damages under federal statutes. Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Nevada state law 6 || claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) because the state law claims are so related to the federal 7 || claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. 8 Til. ? THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES AND REQUIRE NO 10 PROOF 1 The parties have agreed to the following stipulated facts: D 1. Defendant hired Plaintiff as a cocktail server — model on November 20, 2008. B 2. Pursuant to Defendant’s job summary for the cocktail server — model position, the 14 cocktail server is responsible for providing quality guest service through the serving of beverages, 15 food, and amenities in all areas of the resort, including restaurants, nightclubs, banquets, and the 16 casino. Defendant’s job summary also states that Defendant’s cocktail servers are required to walk in 7 shoes with heels of at least either one-and-three quarters of an inch, or two inches. 18 3. Under Defendant’s attendance policy, employees accrue points for attendance 19 infractions. WLV maintains a point-based attendance policy. The attendance policy provides that if an 0 employee has attendance infractions, then the employee will incur various levels of attendance points. 1 Approved leave, such as leave under the FMLA or other medical leave, does not accrue attendance points under Defendant’s policies. 3 4. WLYV maintained a leave policy that allowed eligible employees to use leave under the 4 FMLA. WLV’s Family and Medical Leave Policy provides that eligible employees may take FMLA 5 leave for the employee’s serious health condition that renders the employee incapable of performing %6 the functions of her job. 7 5. Plaintiff acknowledged she received WLV’s policy in 2009. 28 6. If an employee has worked for Defendant for one year and worked a minimum of 1250 3.

1 || hours in the past 12 months, the employee is permitted leave under the Family Medical Leave Act 2 || (“FMLA”). 3 7. Tiare Ramirez was also entitled to leave under a Collective Bargaining Agreement. If 4 || additional leave is needed, the employee may request an extension of leave under the ADA. 5 8. Plaintiff had previously been approved for leaves of absence between 2009 and 2017. 6 || Plaintiffs approved leave included intermittent leave under the FMLA which was supported by a 7 || medical certification submitted to Defendant in June of 2016 completed by Plaintiff's doctor, Dr. Ted 8 |} Cohen. WLV approved Plaintiff's intermittent leave from June 3, 2016, through June 2, 2017. 9 9. On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff attended a gender reveal party at Town Square before she 10 || was scheduled to work at WLV that day. Coworkers attended the party as well. 11 10. Plaintiff was scheduled to work at WLV from 5:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. 12 11. Plaintiff wore heels at the gender reveal party prior to her shift that day. 13 12. Plaintiff utilized FMLA that day to call out of her shift. 14 13. Tan LaCuesta (““LaCuesta’’) was also in attendance at this gender reveal party and at the 15 || second location thereafter. 16 14. WLV’s Assistant Director of Cocktail Services, Tia Gibson (“Gibson”), saw the picture 17 || on Facebook. 18 15.

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

Ramirez v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, (D. Nev. 2023).

Ramirez v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (Ramirez v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (Supreme Court, 1982)