Moises Mendez v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. d/b/a Westin Times Square Hotel

Moises Mendez sued the owner of the Westin Times Square Hotel on a hostile workplace theory claiming that he was taunted and physically abused at work and abused. He claimed that he was mocked for stomach scars and his ethnicity.



He also claimed that when he complained his employer installed a hidden camera over his work station. The union NEVER approved the installation of the hidden camera in the kitchen.



He still works at the hotel and plans to show up to work today, his lawyer Ken Thompson said.



Defendant claimed the camera was supposed to protect Mendez from harassment and was approved by his union but later claimed the camera was removed when the union failed to signed-off on the camera.

Plaintiff's verdict for $1 million for pain and suffering and against parent company Starwood Hotels for $2 million in punitive damages.

Dr. Carlos Ortiz, a general psychiatrist

Dr. Andrew P. Levin, a forensic psychiatrist

Editor's Note: According to Ken Thompson, the trial lasted for more than three weeks, and 22 witnesses were called to the stand.

Michael Starr with Holland and Knight had the following to say about the case:

Kent,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment. To begin with, I am now a partner at Holland & Knight and was during the trial. Kindly correct that.

On the merits, I think it would be more balanced to add that the jury REJECTED the plaintiff's claim of a hostile work environment, failure to accommodate his disabilities, discriminatory failure to promote to the position of Pastry Chef, and all retaliation claims other that the one concerning the hidden camera. A press statement issued by Starwood on March 11, 2010 is as follows:



The jury vindicated Starwood and the Hotel by finding no violations of law based on Mr. Mendez's allegations of discrimination and hostile work environment. Starwood is committed to maintaining a quality work environment that is free from all forms of discrimination, harassment and retaliation.



We are baffled by the jury’s sole finding of liability that the hotel had retaliated against Mr. Mendez for his complaints by installing a hidden camera. As the evidence showed, the only purpose of the camera was to investigate Mr.. Mendez's claims that he was being harassed and was intended to protect him and identify his alleged harasser. The Hotel took its obligation to protect Mr. Mendez and investigate his allegations seriously and we believe did the right thing by him. There was certainly never any adverse action taken against him by the Hotel. The use of hidden cameras was used as an investigative tool. We are currently exploring our options to have this erroneous finding reversed.



Mr. Mendez is returning to work today following a brief leave of absence taken to attend the trial. Starwood respects his right to pursue legal claims as well as every associate's right to work in an environment that is free from unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation.



I would ask that you obtain any further information directly from K.C. Kavanaugh of Starwood who is copied on this email.

Thank you.


Michael Starr | Holland & Knight
Partner
31 West 52nd Street | New York NY 10019
Phone 212.513.3506 | Fax 212.385.9010
michael.starr@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________