Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Roark-Whitten Hospitality 2, LP

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

September 21, 2017

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
ROARK-WHITTEN HOSPITALITY 2 LP, d/b/a WHITTEN INN, and JAI HANUMAN, LLC, d/b/a WHITTEN INN TAOS AND/OR EL CAMINO LODGE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff EEOC's Second Motion to Amend Complaint to Add SGI, LLC as a Defendant [Doc. 86] and Defendant Jai Hanuman, LLC's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 96');">96');">96');">96]. The Court, having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, hereby GRANTS Plaintiff EEOC's Second Motion to Amend Complaint to Add SGI, LLC as a Defendant [Doc. 86] and DENIES Defendant Jai Hanuman, LLC's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 96');">96');">96');">96].

         BACKGROUND

         The EEOC filed this action on September 30, 2014, seeking relief for eight named charging parties. [Doc. 1] Generally, the EEOC alleged that the Defendants created a hostile work environment, employed discriminatory policies and practices, and retaliated against the charging parties at a hotel operated by Roark-Whitten Hospitality 2, LP (hereafter, Whitten Inn) in Taos, New Mexico. [Doc. 1, ¶¶ 77-97] The EEOC originally sued Whitten Inn and related companies.[1] [Doc. 1] Prior to any Defendant answering, the EEOC filed an Amended Complaint on December 22, 2014, adding as a Defendant “XYZ Company(s)/Corporation(s).” [Doc. 4] In the Amended Complaint, EEOC alleged that, “[u]pon information and belief, after the Commission issued reasonable cause determinations and attempted conciliation with the Whitten Inn Defendants, the Whitten Inn in Taos, New Mexico was sold in 2014 to David Patel and/or an unknown owner and/or XYZ Company(s)/Corporation(s).” [Doc. 4, ¶ 19] Subsequently, the EEOC moved to again amend its complaint, this time moving to substitute Jai Hanuman, LLC (hereafter, Jai), identifying Jai as the company previously identified as the unknown “XYZ Company(s)/Corporation(s).” [Doc. 52] The Court granted the Motion to Amend [Doc. 85] and the EEOC filed its Second Amended Complaint.

         In the EEOC's Second Amended Complaint, the EEOC alleged that it brings its action against Jai “pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.p. 19(a)(1)(A) in order to secure appropriate relief, including re-instatement (sic), injunctive relief and other appropriate relief from the hotel now currently operated as the Whitten Inn in Taos, New Mexico.” [Doc. 87, 2');">p. 2] The EEOC alleged that, having sold the hotel, Whitten Inn is unable to provide all relief to the charging parties, including “re-instatement (sic), injunctive relief and other relief” at the hotel. [Doc. 87, ¶ 17] The EEOC further alleged, upon information and belief, that Jai “has substantially continued the business operations of Whitten Inn”; that it is involved in the same “business operations” as Whitten Inn, namely operating a hotel; that it “has jobs with substantially the same working conditions”; and that it “continues to use the hotel building, ” “at least some of the same work force and/or supervisory personnel, ” and the same machinery and equipment as Whitten Inn. [Doc. 87, ¶¶ 20-25]

         The EEOC sought specific relief from Jai, including, inter alia: a permanent injunction enjoining “Jai Hanuman and any other successor employer” from engaging in discriminatory employment practices; an order requiring Jai to carry out and institute “policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities” and “which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices”; back pay; front pay; reinstatement; “compensation for past and future pecuniary losses” including relocation and job search expenses; emotional distress damages; and punitive damages. [Doc. 87, pp. 17-18]

         The EEOC also filed Plaintiff EEOC's Second Motion to Amend Complaint to Add SGI, LLC as a Defendant. [Doc. 86] Therein, the EEOC requested leave to add SGI, LLC (hereafter, SGI) as a Defendant “based on the recent sale of the Taos Hotel at issue in this lawsuit from Jai Hanuman, LLC to SGI.” [Doc. 86, p. 1] In its proposed Third Amended Complaint, the EEOC alleges that “Jai Hanuman and SGI have been added to this lawsuit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.p. 19(a)(1)(A) in order to secure appropriate relief, including re-instatement (sic), injunctive relief and other appropriate relief from the Taos Hotel.” [Doc. 86-2, 2');">p. 2] As relevant, the EEOC further alleges as follows:

27. After Plaintiff EEOC filed suit against the Whitten in Hotels on September 30, 2014, and after Plaintiff EEOC sought to amend Jai Hanuman as a defendant to this lawsuit in August 2016, the Taos Hotel was sold in 2016 to SGI.
28. Upon information and belief, SGI's predecessors, Jai Hanuman and Whitten Inn, are unable to provide certain relief in this lawsuit, including re-instatement (sic), injunctive relief and other relief, that would involve the hotel in Taos, New Mexico now under new ownership by SGI.
31. Upon information and belief, SGI has substantially continued the business operations of the Taos Hotel in Taos, New Mexico.
32. Upon information and belief, SGI has used and continues to use the hotel building at the same physical location as Defendant Whitten Inn at 615 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico 87571.
33. Upon information and belief, SGI has jobs with substantially the same working conditions as those jobs that Defendants had at all relevant times at 615 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico, 87571.
34. Upon information and belief, SGI has utilized at least some of the same machinery and equipment as Defendants utilized to operate the hotel at 615 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico, 87571.
35. Upon information and belief, SGI is involved in the business of operating a hotel at 615 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico, 87571 referred to as the Whitten Inn - Taos and/or El Camino Lodge. Defendant Whitten Inn and Defendant Jai Hanuman were also involved in the same business of operating a hotel at 615 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico, 87571 referred to as the Whitten Inn - Taos and/or El Camino Lodge.
36. SGI is successor to Defendant Jai Hanuman and Defendant Whitten Inn as the new owner of the hotel at 615 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico, 87571 and is a party to this lawsuit under Fed.R.Civ.p. 19(a)(1)(A) in whose absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties.

         [Doc. 86-2]

         The EEOC requests specific relief from SGI, including, inter alia: a permanent injunction from particular allegedly discriminatory policies; an order requiring SGI to “carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities . . . and which eradicate the effects of its . . . unlawful employment practices”; various monetary relief to make the charging parties whole, including back pay and front pay; “re-instatement (sic) at the Whitten Inn Taos hotel for aggrieved individuals who are entitled to rightful place re-instatement (sic)”; and punitive damages. [Doc. 86-2, pp. 17-19]

         ANALYSIS

         Standard Governing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.