|
|
Abstract:
August 15, 1997
A federal judge in florida approved this class action against the Motel 6 motel chain. The class action alleges discrimination and harassment of African-American and other non-whites seeking accommodations at the chain. Motel 6's response to the suit was not available as of this posting.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JANET JACKSON, DELOIS EVANS, JAMES STERNS, KARL BALDWIN, and MARCIAN KILLSNIGHT, On behalf of themselves and as Representatives of a Class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MOTEL 6 MULTIPURPOSE, INC., MOTEL 6, G.P., INC., MOTEL 6 OPERATING L.P., IBL LIMITED, INC., d/b/a MOTEL 6, and ACCOR S.A.,
Defendants.
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preliminary Statement
Case Nos. 96-115-CIV-FTM-25 I 96-72-CIV-FTM-17D (Consolidated)
1. This is a class action brought by the five named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages to stop and deter Defendants from continuing the unlawful discriminatory practices described below and to provide adequate remedies to victims of such practices.
2. Defendants own and operate over 750 "Motel 6" motels throughout the United States. Among Defendants' common discriminatory practices are: (1) segregation of African-American and other non-white patrons from white patrons within Motel 6 facilities, (2) failure to maintain rooms rented to AfricanAmerican and other non-white patrons in the same manner that rooms for white patrons are maintained, (3) making misrepresentations to African-American and other non-white patrons about the availability of rooms in particular sections of Motel 6 facilities and about the availability of rooms in general, (4) renting rooms to African-American and other non-white patrons at higher rates or on less favorable terms than are given to white patrons, (5) harassing African-American and other non-white patrons on the basis of their race, and (6) failing and refusing to rent rooms to African-American and other non-white persons while at the same time offering to rent rooms to white patrons.
3. These common practices by Defendants have denied Plaintiffs and other members of the Class the right to make and enforce contracts on the same basis as white citizens, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and further have denied Plaintiffs and the Class the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of Motel 6 facilities on the basis of race, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6. The claims asserted herein arise, inter alia, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, et seq.
5. Venue is proper in this District because substantial parts of events giving rise to the action occurred in this District.
The Parties
6. Plaintiff Janet Jackson ("Jackson") is an AfricanAmerican citizen and resident of Florida.
7. Plaintiff Delois Evans ("Evans") is an African-American citizen and resident of Florida.
8. Plaintiff James Sterns
("Sterns") is an AfricanAmerican citizen and resident
of Texas.
9. Plaintiff Karl Baldwin ("Baldwin") is an AfricanAmerican citizen and resident of Florida.
10. Plaintiff Marcian Killsnight ("Killsnight") is a Native
American citizen of Montana. (The five named Plaintiffs are referred to collectively herein as "Plaintiffs")
11. Defendant Motel 6 Operating L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Defendant Motel 6 G.P., Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Defendant Motel 6 G.P., Inc. is the general partner of Defendant Motel 6 Operating L.P., and they do business throughout the continental United States, including Florida, as Motel 6. Defendant Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.
12. Defendant IBL Limited, Inc. is the parent company of Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc. and Motel 6 G.P.; Inc. and is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Scarsdale, N.Y. Defendant IBL Limited, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Accor, S.A., a French corporation with its headquarters in Evry Cedex, France. Its stock is traded on the Paris Stock Exchange, and its United States headquarters are located in Scarsdale, New York. Defendant Accor, S.A. was formed in 1983, and now operates restaurants, cruise lines, railroad services and catering services, as well as more than 2000 hotels. (The Defendants identified in this and the preceding paragraph are referred to collectively herein as "Defendants.")
Factual Background
13. Motel 6 motels are places of accommodation as defined in Title 42, United States Code, Section 2000a. Defendants own and operate over 750 Motel 6 motels, located in every state in the United States except Alaska and Hawaii. The State of Florida has over 30 Motel 6 motels.
14. Defendants are responsible for the training and supervision of all persons who manage, and work at all Motel 6 motels. Those persons are employees and agents of Defendants. Defendants have promulgated, and are responsible for ensuring compliance with, the policies and procedures under which Motel 6 motels operate throughout the United States.
15. It is a common practice at Motel 6 motels to discriminate against African-American and other non-white patrons on the basis of their race. African-Americans and other non-whites are commonly referred to or characterized as "locals'' by managers and other employees at Motel 6 motels, while less desirable rooms at Motel 6 motels -- at the back of the facilities, far away from the pool and other public gathering places -- are commonly referred to as the "ghetto."
16. It is a common practice at Motel 6 motels to place "locale" in the "ghetto" rooms regardless of the availability of rooms in other, more desirable parts of the motel facility. In addition, it is a common practice at Motel 6 motels to tell African-American and other non-white persons who inquire about the availability of rooms that only rooms in the less desirable section of the motel are available, even when rooms outside the "ghetto" section are made available to white patrons.
17. It is a common practice at Motel 6 motels not to maintain or clean rooms in the "ghetto" section in the same manner that rooms used for white patrons are maintained and cleaned. For example, broken or damaged items of furniture or fixtures are repaired or replaced in rooms used for white patrons, while rooms in the "ghetto" section are left in disrepair. Similarly, rooms in the "ghetto", section are not routinely given a full cleaning with mattress pads and sheets changed -- while rooms used for white patrons are routinely cleaned thoroughly.
18. It is a common practice at Motel 6 motels to tell African-American and other non-white persons inquiring about vacancies at the motel that no rooms are available, when in fact rooms outside the "ghetto" section are available and are rented to white patrons. Through this and other means, African-American and other non-white persons have been and are denied accommodations at Motel 6 motels.
19. It is a common practice at Motel 6 motels to charge African-American and other non-white persons higher rates and to rent rooms on terms less favorable than the rates and terms given to white patrons.
20. It is a common practice at Motel 6 motels to harass African-American and other non-white persons by sending security guards to tell peaceful African-American and other non-white patrons to stop disturbing others, by evicting African-American and other non-white patrons on pretextual grounds, and through various other tactics.
21. The above-described common practices have been reported, described, and admitted to by employees or former employees of Motel 6, as well as experienced by African-American and other non-white persons at Motel 6 motels in many states and in many parts of the country, from California to Florida.
22. Defendants have not taken prompt and effective action to prevent, deter, or remedy the discriminatory practices identified herein. Defendants further have attempted to discourage and prevent plaintiffs and others from disclosing or publicly discussing Defendants' discriminatory practices. Plaintiffs Jackson and Evans
23. Plaintiffs Jackson and Evans are law enforcement officers who work and reside in Palm Beach County, Florida. On March 2, 1994, Plaintiffs Jackson and Evans traveled to Punta Gorda, Florida at the request of the Charlotte County, Florida Sheriff's Office to meet with Detectives from the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department regarding an undercover assignment.
24. Before Jackson and Evans arrived in Punta Gorda, a white Detective from the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department went to the Motel 6 in Punta Gorda to ensure that a room would be available at the motel. The Charlotte County Detective informed Plaintiffs Jackson and Evans, upon their arrival in Punta Gorda, that an employee at the Motel 6 had stated that a room would be available at that motel. When Jackson and Evans then entered the Motel 6 and asked for a room, a Motel 6 desk clerk gave Evans a registration card to fill out. Thereafter, the desk clerk's supervisor came up to Evans, took the registration card from her, and stated that no rooms were available.
25. When, shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs Jackson and Evans informed a Charlotte County Detective that they had been denied a room a the Motel 6, a white Detective entered the Punt a Gorda Motel 6 motel and immediately obtained a room.
Plaintiff Sterns
26. On February 13, 1996, Plaintiff Sterns was in the area of Duncanville, Texas on business. Rather than returning to his home in North Dallas, Sterns decided to stay in Duncanville (on the south side of Dallas) so that he would not have to travel far for a meeting in the area the next morning.
27. Plaintiff Sterns said good-bye to his fiancee, who had met him for dinner, and entered the Duncanville Motel 6 motel, just off Route 20, to register for a room. Sterns had inadvertently left his wallet in his fiancee's car.
28. When Sterns indicated his interest in renting a room, the employee on duty at the Duncanville Motel 6 told Sterns that no rooms were available. The employee suggested that Sterns try the Motel 6 motel a few miles away -- in the predominantly African-American "Redbird" area of South Dallas where the accommodations were far inferior.
29. Sterns had observed that at least one white just before him had been given rooms by the Motel 6 employee. When Sterns stepped outside, he met his fiancee, who had returned with his wallet, which she had discovered on the seat of her car. Sterns's fiancee, who is white, then entered the Duncanville Motel 6 motel, where she immediately was offered a room for the night.
Plaintiff Baldwin
30. In or about the Spring of 1994, Plaintiff Baldwin entered the Motel 6 motel on the Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee and attempted to rent a room for the night. He was told by the Motel 6 employee at the desk that no rooms were available, despite the fact that many rooms appeared vacant and there were only a few cars in the parking lot. As he left the office, a white couple entered the office and emerged a few minutes later with a motel room key. Baldwin immediately drove to a nearby shopping center, where he called the Motel 6 on the Apalachee Parkway and was told by the employee who answered the phone that rooms were available.
31. Later in 1994, Plaintiff Baldwin attempted again to rent a room at the Motel 6 motel on the Apalachee Parkway. As had happened on the prior occasion, a Motel 6 employee told Baldwin that no rooms were available, despite the fact that many rooms appeared vacant and there were only a few cars in the parking lot.
32. Plaintiff Baldwin, on other occasions, stayed at the same Motel 6 motel on the Apalachee Parkway. On each such occasion, Plaintiff Baldwin was placed in a room in the back section of the motel -- the area that Motel 6 employees commonly refer to as the ``ghetto" section. On one occasion, Baldwin asked for a room facing the pool. A Motel 6 employee told him that all such rooms were taken. When he returned to his room, passing the rooms by the pool, many appeared to be vacant.
33. On another occasion, Plaintiff Baldwin attempted to rent a room at the Motel 6 motel on Monroe Street in Tallahassee. On this occasion, a white man who identified himself as a Motel 6 manager told Plaintiff Baldwin that no rooms were available, despite the fact that many rooms appeared to be vacant.
Plaintiff Killsnight
34. On July 22, 1994, Plaintiff Killsnight was traveling from Fargo, North Dakota to his home in Billings, Montana. Traveling with him were his wife, who is white, his wife's parents, who are white, and his daughter. In Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Killsnight and the others stopped to look for two motel rooms. They saw that the Motel 6 motel in Sioux Falls had its vacancy sign illuminated, so Plaintiff Killsnight and his father-in-law went inside to rent two rooms.
35. Plaintiff Killsnight's father-in-law approached the Motel 6 employee at the desk and asked if two rooms were available. Plaintiff Killsnight was out of the Motel 6 employee's sight, looking at a rack of brochures. The Motel 6 employee informed Killsnight's father-in-law that three rooms were available and that one was being cleaned and would be ready in a few minutes. At that point, Killsnight's father-in-law called Killsnight over and he approached the desk.
36. Immediately upon seeing Plaintiff Killsnight, the Motel 6 employee turned off the motel's vacancy sign and told Killsnight that no rooms were available. Killsnight's father-in-law protested, but the Motel 6 employee just kept telling Plaintiff Killsnight to leave.
37. The discriminatory conduct described in this Complaint has been carried out throughout the United States by employees and agents of Defendants acting within the scope of their employment and upon the instructions, encouragement, and/or with the knowledge and ratification of Defendants' management.
38. The conduct engaged in by Defendants and their employees and agents, as described above, denied Plaintiffs the right to make and enforce contracts on the same basis as white citizens and violated Plaintiff's right to the full and equal enjoyment of .the public accommodations owned and operated by Defendants.
39. Through the actions described above, Defendants acted intentionally, maliciously, and with willful, callous, wanton and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' federally protected civil rights.
40. As a proximate result of the actions of Defendants, their agents and employees, as described above, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable loss and injury, including but not limited to economic loss, humiliation, embarrassment, physical and emotional distress, mental anguish, and a deprivation of their civil rights. For these injuries, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages.
41. Because Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' federally protected rights, Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages. Class Allegations
42. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and, as a class action on behalf of all similarly situated persons who have sought or will seek to obtain public accommodation at Motel 6 motels and who were or will be denied such accommodations through discrimination or segregation because of race (the "Class"). This class action is brought pursuant to Rule 23(a),(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
43. While the exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, there are over 750 Motel 6 motels, with locations in every state in the United States except Alaska and Hawaii. The number of members of the class affected by Defendants' illegal policies and practices of discrimination is believed to be at least in the thousands, and is too large to make joinder practicable. The number of members of the class who could be affected in the future is likewise incapable of precise determination, but is substantial.
44. This action poses questions of law or fact that are common to and affect the rights of all members of the Class. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.
45. Common questions of fact and law exist as to all members of the Class and such questions predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual member of the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are:
(a) whether the policies and practices of Defendants served to deny Plaintiffs and other members of the Class the right, on the basis of their race, to make and enforce contracts and to enjoy the same privileges in public accommodations as are available to white citizens;
(b) whether Defendants denied Plaintiffs and other members of the Class access to public accommodations, advantages and privileges by reason of race;
46. Plaintiffs will adequately represent the Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in class action litigation.
47. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
48. The conduct engaged in by Defendants and their employees and agents, as described above, is a manifestation of Class-wide discriminatory practices employed by Defendants; Through these actions, Defendants denied members of the Class the right to make and enforce contracts on the same basis as white citizens and violated the right of members of the Class to the full and equal enjoyment of the public accommodations owned and operated by Defendants.
49. Through the actions described above, Defendants acted intentionally, maliciously, and with willful, callous, wanton, and reckless disregard for the federally protected civil rights of members of the Class.
50. As a proximate result of the actions of Defendants, their agents, and their employees, as described above, members of the Class have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable loss and injury, including but not limited to economic loss, humiliation, embarrassment, physical and emotional distress, mental anguish, and a deprivation of their civil rights. For these injuries, members of the Class seek compensatory damages.
51. Because Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously with reckless disregard for the federally protected rights of members of the Class, members of the Class also seek punitive damages.
Count I
(violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981)
52. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 50, above, as if set forth fully herein.
53. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all members of the Class that Plaintiffs represent.
54. By the actions described above, Defendants have denied Plaintiffs and members of the Class the same right to make and enforce contracts and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings as are enjoyed by white citizens of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
COUNT II
(violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000a)
55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 above, as if set forth fully herein.
56. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all members of the Class that Plaintiffs represent.
57. All of the Motel 6 motels operated by Defendants are motels, each having in excess of five rooms for rent and providing lodging to transient guests; as such, each Motel 6 motel is a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b)(1).
58. The operations of Motel 6 motels "affect commerce', within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c)(l).
59. By their actions described above, Defendants have denied Plaintiffs and the member" of the Class they represent the full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations on the basis of race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court grant them relief as follows:
(a) certify this action as a class action maintainable under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(b) enter a declaratory judgment finding that the actions of Defendants alleged in this Complaint violate 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000a;
(c) enter a permanent injunction barring Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful, discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint;
(d) enter a permanent injunction directing that Defendants take all affirmative steps necessary to remedy the effects of the discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and to prevent repeated occurrences in the future,
(e) award compensatory damages in an amount that would fully compensate Plaintiffs and Class members for the economic loss, humiliation, embarrassment, physical and emotional distress, and mental anguish caused by Defendants' violations of the law alleged in this Complaint;
(f) award punitive damages to Plaintiffs and Class members in an amount that would punish Defendants for the willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct alleged in this Complaint and that would effectively deter Defendants from future discriminatory behavior;
(g) award Plaintiffs and Class members their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs; and
(h) order all other relief deemed just and equitable by the Court.
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right.
BURT & PUCILLO
By:
Michael J. Pucillo(261033)
C. Oliver Burt, III (0005215)
Lauren S. Dadario (0005657)
Esperante, Suite 300 East
222 Lakeview Avenue
West Palm Beach, Fl 33401
407/835-9400
RICCI, GUBBARD, LEOPOLD & FRANKEL
By:
Edward M. Ricci(185673)
Theodore J. Leopold (705608)
1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, Fl. 33402
407/684-6500
LAW FIRM OF MICHAEL C. ADDISON
By:
Michael C. Addison (145579)
100 North Tampa Street
Suite 2175
Tampa, Florida 33602-5145
(813) 223-2000
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P
By:
Craig A. Hoover
Steven J. Routh
555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
202/637-5600
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
By:
Joseph M. Sellers
Avis E. Buchanan
1300 19th Street, N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
202/835-0031
=======================================
 |