Care is paramount in employment decisions

A hotel front desk employee (plaintiff) has sued her employer (defendant hotel) after being sexually assaulted by her supervisor.[1] 

Time travel backwards 20 years. The same supervisor had been hired by the same hotel. At that earlier time, he sexually harassed a housekeeper and was forced to resign. Soon thereafter, a same-brand hotel in a neighboring state hired that same supervisor. He again sexually harassed a housekeeper and again was forced to resign.

Now fast forward those 20 years. The defendant hotel hired the supervisor again. The hotel explained that it assumed he had “grown up” in the interim years. Problematically, the hotel did not require any training, and took no other action to discourage sexually harassing conduct.  

The hotel’s assumption that the supervisor had matured proved naive. During the plaintiff’s shifts, the supervisor regularly touched her inappropriately and talked to her about his extramarital affairs. She rebuffed his various advances. 

On the supervisor’s birthday he invited plaintiff and several employees to a celebration at a nearby bar after their shift. At the event, plaintiff lost consciousness at the bar, the cause of which was not identified in the court’s decision (excessive alcohol? drugs?). When she awoke, she was at her house being assaulted by the supervisor.

Following an investigation by the hotel, the supervisor was, yet again, terminated. Plaintiff thereafter sued the hotel for negligent hiring and negligent supervision. The hotel denied liability, arguing that the assault was not foreseeable. In addition, the hotel noted the attack occurred off hotel premises and outside work hours, and therefore was not work-related. The hotel thus sought dismissal of the case. 

The court cited the relevant law—employers owe a duty to their employees and guests to ensure their workers do not pose a threat. The tribunal further noted that the hotel knew the supervisor had a history of sexual misconduct yet rehired him without taking any precautions to modify or monitor his conduct. The court additionally determined the supervisor’s behavior was sufficiently job-related. For these reasons, the hotel’s motion to dismiss was denied.

The lessons are clear. Hotels must fully vet applicants for employment. Sexual harassment training should be part of the onboarding process. A would-be worker with a known or discovered propensity toward harmful behavior should be denied employment.

This article was originally published in the July/August edition of Hotel Management magazine. Subscribe here.

[1] DOE v. Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, 2024 WL 2262659 (D. R.I., 5172024).