Guest Services Agent Claims Waikiki Beach Marriott Refused to Accommodate ADA-Covered Condition

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A long-time guest services agent employed at the Waikiki Beach Marriott Resort & Spa in Honolulu has filed a proposed class action in which he claims he was discriminated against when requesting workplace accommodations for his spinal stenosis. The plaintiff, whose complaint names Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. as the defendant, alleges the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to allow him to come back to work after an independent medical examiner in October 2015 found that, following a May workplace injury, he would be able to perform the functions of his job so long as he was able to sit down and “have a good ergonomic setup” for his computer, keyboard and mouse.

The lawsuit says that the plaintiff stopped receiving workers’ compensation payments in March 2016 and was not scheduled to work even though a month prior the man’s physician informed the defendant he could perform his job “without problem.” That same month, the plaintiff was listed by the defendant as on unpaid sick leave, the case continues.

After receiving a letter from the defendant’s director of human resources that stated the company had determined he could not perform the functions of a guest services agent with or without reasonable accommodations, the plaintiff in May 2016 filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), according to the complaint. The case says the plaintiff was finally provided reasonable accommodations by the defendant in September of that year. In October 2017, the lawsuit continues, the EEOC issued the plaintiff a right-to-sue letter with regard to his disability discrimination charge against the defendant.

From here, the complaint goes into allegations that Marriott Hotel Services also violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay the plaintiff time-and-a-half overtime wages for regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week. More specifically, the case charges the defendant failed to include certain additional payments—incentives for work-based metrics, shift differentials, special training pay, relief supervisor payments, etc.—when calculating the plaintiff’s overtime pay rate.