KING v. MARINA DIST. DEV. CO. LLC, No. 1:2015cv08707 - Document 27 (D.N.J. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 11/8/2018. (dmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
KING v. MARINA DIST. DEV. CO. LLC Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW J ERSEY GEORGE KING, : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff, v. MARINA DIST. DEV. CO., LLC d/ b/ a BORGATA HOTEL AND CASINO & SPA, Defendant. Hon. J oseph H. Rodriguez Civil Action No. 15-870 7 OPINION This m atter com es before the court on Motion of Defendants Marina Dist. Dev. Co., LLC d/ b/ a Borgata Hotel and Casino & Spa (“Borgata”) for sum m ary judgm ent pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The Court has considered the written subm issions of the parties as well as the argum ents advanced at the hearing on October 17, 20 17. For the reasons stated on the record that day, as well as those that follow, Defendants’ m otion is granted. I. Background Plaintiff George King was a well-liked em ployee of the Borgata who was hired in J une, 20 0 8 as a Mail Room Runner. See King Dep., Farrell Cert., Ex., A. pp. 12:22-13.2. Despite applying for nineteen positions at the Borgata during his em ploym ent, King rem ained in the m ail room until his term ination in J une, 20 13. Id. at pp. 42:5-13, 144:13-14.5. King was term inated pursuant to the Borgata’s attendance policy. Id. King brings this action on the theory that the Borgata’s failure to hire him was racially m otivated. During his tim e at the Borgata, King com pleted an online course of study to im prove his chances for advancem ent. Id. at pp. 54:20 -55:7. King applied for 1 Dockets.Justia.com nineteen different positions and, in each instance, he alleges that Borgata’s failure to hire him was racially m otivated. During oral argum ent, the Court noted that the record lacked evidence to support King’s claim s as to each instance. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed that King is unable to sustain his claim s of racial discrim ination for the m ajority of the positions and conceded that King is only pursuing this action as to the following positions for which he was not hired: (1) Part-Tim e Club Host Mixx Nightclub, (2) Box Office Supervisor, (3) Direct Marketing Coordinator, (4) Custom er Assurance Coordinator, and (5) Advertising/ Branding Manager. The Borgata claim s that King lacked the requisite qualifications for each position and that King cannot establish an inference of discrim ination because he is unable to identify the qualifications of and the identity of the persons ultim ately hired for these positions. Even if King establishes a prim a facie case of discrim ination, there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact related to whether the Borgata’s decision was m otivated by racial anim us because the Borgata has articulated legitim ate, nondiscrim inatory reasons for each decision. King fails to identify evidence in the record to challenge the Borgata’s reasons. II. Sum m ary J udgm ent Standard “Sum m ary judgm ent is proper if there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact and if, viewing the facts in the light m ost favorable to the non-m oving party, the m oving party is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.” Pearson v. Com ponent Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471, 482 n.1 (3d Cir. 20 0 1) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a). Thus, the Court will enter sum m ary judgm ent in favor of a m ovant who shows that it is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law, and supports the 2 showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact by “citing to particular parts of m aterials in the record, including depositions, docum ents, electronically stored inform ation, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . adm issions, interrogatory answers, or other m aterials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)(1)(A). An issue is “genuine” if supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonm oving party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is “m aterial” if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact m ight affect the outcom e of the suit. Id. In determ ining whether a genuine issue of m aterial fact exists, the court m ust view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in the light m ost favorable to the nonm oving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Initially, the m oving party has the burden of dem onstrating the absence of a genuine issue of m aterial fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the m oving party has m et this burden, the nonm oving party m ust identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Maidenbaum v. Bally’s Park Place, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 1254, 1258 (D.N.J . 1994). Thus, to withstand a properly supported m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the nonm oving party m ust identify specific facts and affirm ative evidence that contradict those offered by the m oving party. Andersen, 477 U.S. at 256-57. “A nonm oving party m ay not ‘rest upon m ere allegations, general denials or . . . vague statem ents . . . .’” Trap Rock Indus., Inc. v. Local 825, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 982 F.2d 884, 890 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 50 0 (3d Cir. 1991)). Indeed, 3 the plain language of Rule 56(c) m andates the entry of sum m ary judgm ent, after adequate tim e for discovery and upon m otion, against a party who fails to m ake a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an elem ent essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. That is, the m ovant can support the assertion that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed by showing that “an adverse party cannot produce adm issible evidence to support the [alleged dispute of] fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). III. Analysis Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is governed by the burden-shifting fram ework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 80 2-0 3, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). To prevail on a Title VII racial discrim ination claim in a failure to hire posture, a plaintiff m ust dem onstrate prim a facie that that (1) that he falls within a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the work for which he applied; (3) that he was not hired; and (4) that the em ployer continued to seek others with the sam e qualifications or hired som eone with the sam e or lesser qualifications who was not in the protected status. Andersen v. Exxon Co., 89 N.J . 483, 492, 446 A.2d 486 (1982). If the plaintiff m akes out a prim a facie case, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to establish a legitim ate, nondiscrim inatory reason for the adverse em ploym ent action. See Burton v. Teleflex, 70 7 F.3d 417, 426 (3d Cir. 20 13). If the defendant establishes a legitim ate, nondiscrim inatory reason for its actions, the burden of production shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant's proffered reason 4 was a pretext for actual discrim ination. Id. The plaintiff m ust show that the defendant's proffered reason is a pretext for discrim ination. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish a prim a facie case of discrim ination. Even assum ing Plaintiff can carry his burden on the prim a facie case, there are no genuine issues of m aterial fact related to whether Defendant's proffered reasons for its hiring decisions are a pretext for discrim ination. Sum m ary judgm ent will be entered in favor of Defendant Borgata. A. Prim a Facie Case Plaintiff cannot sustain his burden of establishing a prim a facie of racial discrim ination because he cannot dem onstrate that he was either qualified for the positions he applied for, that the em ployer continued to seek others with the sam e qualifications, or hired som eone with the sam e or lesser qualifications who was not in the protected status. Here, the parties agree that Plaintiff can satisfy the first and third elem ents of the prim a facie case. The Court will address each position separately. 1. Part-Tim e Club Host for Mixx Nightclub Plaintiff cannot dem onstrate that he was qualified for the position of Club Host for the Mixx Nightclub because the position was seasonal and no full-tim e team m em bers were considered and because he did not possess the requisite experience. See Ex. “D” at No. 7-19. In his deposition, King adm its that he does not have any facts to suggest that other full-tim e em ployees were considered for this position. See King Dep., Farrell Cert, Ex. A., p. 124:12-21; see also Plaintiff’s response to paragraph 118 of Borgata’s Statem ent 5 of Undisputed Material Facts. [Doc. No. 1]. In addition, the job description for the Club Host for Mixx, required applicants to “have a m inim um of six m onths experience as a host/ hostess in a high volum e and/ or fine dining environm ent.” See J ob Descriptions, Farrell Cert., Exs. EE & H. Plaintiff adm its he lacked the requisite “experience as a host/ hostess in a high volum e and or fine dining restaurant.” Id.; see also, King Dep., Farrell Cert., Ex. A., pp. 76:6-17; 77:14-78:13; see also Plaintiff’s response to paragraph 22 of Borgata’s Statem ent of Undisputed Material Facts. [Doc. No. 22]. The Borgata offered Kelly Willet the position, but she declined. Ms. Willet was not a full-tim e team m em ber at Borgata and she boasted prior service experience in a fastpaced environm ent. See Willett Application, Farrell Cert., Ex. FF. The Borgata ultim ately hired Alissa Marinello for the position. Like Ms. Willet, Ms. Marinello had never worked at the Borgata before, and therefore was not a full-tim e Borgata team m em ber during the application process, and had relevant prior experience. See Marinello Application, Farrell Cert., Ex. GG. Given King’s adm ission that he did not have relevant food service experience and the fact that the Borgata hired som eone who m et the qualifications specified in the job description, King fails to set forth a prim a facie case of discrim ination because there is no evidence that he was qualified for the position and because the person ultim ately hired by the Borgata had the relevant experience for the position. Sum m ary judgm ent is granted as to this claim . 2. Box Office Supervisor Plaintiff cannot dem onstrate that he was qualified for the position of Box Office Supervisor. The job description for the Box Office Supervisor requires “[s]trong 6 leadership, supervisory and com m unication skills.” The job posting provides that “Box Office experience or equivalent hotel/ casino experience” is preferred. See J ob Description, Farrell Cert., Ex. N. Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence in the record to show that he possessed the requisite qualifications for this position. In addition, Plaintiff adm its that he did not have any box office experience or em ployee m anagem ent experience. See King Dep., Farrell Cert., Ex. A., 76:6-17; 77:14-78:13; 82:11-20 ; see also Plaintiff’s responses to paragraphs 37 and 47 of Borgata’s Statem ent of Undisputed Material Facts. [Doc. No. 22]. The Borgata hired Kelly Paolino for the position. Ms. Paolino’s qualifications include m ultiple years of experience as a supervisor and in ticketing for casino-related entertainment. See Paolino Application, Farrell Cert., Ex. O. In contrast to King, the hired person had current and relevant experience. Id. As a result, King fails to set forth a prim a facie case of discrim ination because there is no evidence that he was qualified for the position and because the person ultim ately hired by the Borgata had the relevant experience for the position. Sum m ary judgm ent is granted as to this claim . 3. Direct Marketing Coordinator Plaintiff cannot dem onstrate that he was qualified for the position of Direct Marketing Coordinator. The job description for the Direct Marketing Coordinator position preferred “recent and relevant casino experience.” See job description for the Direct Marketing Coordinator position attached to Farrell Cert. as Exhibit “P.” Contrary to King’s claim that he had the necessary experience, his application for this position did not reflect the experience Borgata was seeking. See response to paragraph 60 of Borgata’s Statem ent of Undisputed Material Facts. [Doc. No. 22]. He offers no 7 facts in support of his claim that he had relevant, or any, m arketing experience, but states that because Borgata already had a few African Am ericans in those higher positions, they were not going to give him the opportunity. See King Dep., Farrell Cert., Ex. A, p. 91:19-92:10 . King adm its that his application did not reflect the experience Borgata was seeking for this position. Id.; see also response to paragraph 60 of Borgata’s Statem ent of Undisputed Material Facts. [Doc. No. 22]. The Borgata hired Kristen Fulm er for this position. Ms. Fulm er had the necessary experience and was already a m em ber of the m arketing departm ent prior to being hired as the Direct Marketing Coordinator. See Fulm er Application, Farrell Cert., Ex. Q. As a result, King fails to set forth a prim a facie case of discrim ination because there is no evidence that he was qualified for the position and because the person ultim ately hired by the Borgata had the relevant experience for the position. Sum m ary judgm ent is granted as to this claim . 4. Custom er Assurance Coordinator Plaintiff cannot dem onstrate that discrim ination played any part in the Borgata’s decision not to hire him for the Custom er Assurance Coordinator position. King initially applied for this position in October, 20 12. Ex. A., p. 98:7-10 . He was interviewed and considered for the position. See King Dep., Farrell Cert., Ex. A. pp. 10 7:21-10 9:10 ; see also Def. Ans. To Interrog., Farrell Cert., Ex. D, Nos. 7-11 and 7-14. The Borgata claim s that it did not im m ediately fill the position due to business needs. However, the position was reposted in or about March or April of 20 13. Id. Plaintiff reapplied for the Custom er Assurance Coordinator position, but was not re-interviewed. See King Dep., Farrell Cert., Ex. A., p. 10 7:12-20 . Plaintiff rem ained under consideration for the 8 position, but the Borgata hired Christina Thom as. Ms. Thom as had experience in the Custom er Care group as a VIP Specialist and had prior experience as a Concierge Manager, dealing directly with custom er service for guests. See Thom as Application, Farrell Cert., Ex. W. The Borgata claim s Thom as’ relevant experience gave her an edge over King. As a result, King fails to set forth a prim a facie case of discrim ination because there is no dispute that the Borgata hired a person with superior qualifications. Sum m ary judgm ent is granted as to this claim . 5. Advertising/ Branding Manager Plaintiff cannot dem onstrate that he possessed the necessary qualifications and/ or that discrim ination played any part in the Borgata’s decision not to hire him for the Advertising/ Branding Manager position. The job description for the Advertising/ Branding Manager position lists a m inim um of “five years recent and relevant experience in m anaging advertising and m arketing; or equivalent com bination of education and experience” and “prior m anagem ent/ supervisory experience of 2 years or m ore.” See J ob Description, Farrell Cert., Ex. Z. King agrees that he lacks these qualifications and had no experience in m arketing, advertising or branding for casinos or the gam ing industry. See King Dep., Farrell Cert., Ex. A., pp. 76:6-17; 77:14-78:13; 10 3:13-14; see also King Resum e, Farrell Cert., Ex. C. King fails to point to any evidence in the record tending to show that he was qualified for this position. Brittany Raffill was selected for the position. The selection was actually a prom otion from her current position in that sam e departm ent as the Brand Marketing Coordinator at Borgata - a position she had held for nearly two and a half years before 9 she was prom oted. See Def. Ans. To Interrog., Farrell Cert., Ex. D., No. 7-13; Raffill Application, Farrell Cert., Ex. AA. Ms. Raffill also had several years of prior casino advertising and m arketing experience before she joined the Borgata. Id. As a result, King fails to set forth a prim a facie case of discrim ination because there is no evidence that he was qualified for the position and because the person ultim ately hired by the Borgata had the relevant experience for the position. Sum m ary judgm ent is granted as to this claim . For all of the reasons stated above, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the prim a facie case of discrim ination because there are no genuine issues of m aterial fact related to whether Plaintiff was qualified for the position and/ or whether the em ployer continued to seek others with the sam e qualifications, or hired som eone with the sam e or lesser qualifications who was not in the protected status. Even if Plaintiff could successfully m ake out a prim a facie case, the burden of production shifts to Borgata establish a legitim ate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse em ploym ent action. See Burton v. Teleflex, 70 7 F.3d 417, 426 (3d Cir. 20 13). B. Burden Shifting To satisfy the relatively light burden of production in a Title VII case, the Borgata m ust articulate a legitim ate, nondiscrim inatory reason for each decision to not hire King for each position. Here, the Borgata offers sufficient evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for each hiring decision to m eet this burden. In each instance the Borgata claim s that an individual with qualifications superior to King was hired. As a result, the burden of production rebounds to King, who m ust now show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Borgata’s explanations for its hiring decisions are m erely a pretext for 10 discim ination. Goosby v. J ohnson & J ohnson Medical, Inc., 228 F.3d 313, 319 (3d Cir. 20 0 0 ) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plum bing Products Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 20 97, 147 L.Ed.2d 10 5 (20 0 0 )). King fails to m eet his burden. Of the five positions, the only position that Plaintiff was arguably qualified for is the Custom er Assurance Coordinator position. To the extent that the Borgata’s unchallenged decision to delay fulfillm ent of this post for business reasons is sufficient to suggest that the Borgata m anipulated the hiring process to frustrate Plaintiff’s advancem ent, King fails to offer any evidence that the Borgata’s business decision is a pretext for racial discrim ination. King attempts to rely on the bulk of the nineteen decisions to not hire him as evidence of racial discrim ination, but fails to attach any docum ents or evidence to support his claim that he was equally qualified for certain positions and adm its that for m ost, he was not qualified. King’s argum ent asks the Court to consider applications for positions he withdrew from , was not qualified for, and which his counsel agrees lack evidentiary support on his claim s of racial discrimination. For these reasons, the bulk of the Borgata’s decisions to forgo hiring King do not weigh in favor of King’s unsupported assertion that the Borgata’s decisions were racially m otivated. Moreover, there is no evidence to challenge the Borgata’s decision to delay hiring for the Custom er Assurance position as being related to anything other than business considerations. Finally, the person ultim ately hired had superior qualifications. King’s reliance “upon m ere allegations, general denials or . . . vague statem ents . . . .” are insufficient on sum m ary judgm ent. Trap Rock Indus., Inc., 982 F.2d at 890 (internal quotation and citation om itted). As a result, King fails to dem onstrate any weaknesses, 11 im plausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the em ployer's proffered legitim ate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them “unworthy of credence” and hence infer “that the em ployer did not act for [the asserted] nondiscrim inatory reasons.” Bray, 110 F.3d at 990 (citing Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765) (em phasis in original). For these reasons, even if King could establish a prim a facie case of discrim ination, there are no facts in the record to challenge the legitim ate non-discrim inatory reasons proffered by Borgata for its hiring decisions. IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, sum m ary judgm ent is granted. An appropriate Order shall issue. Dated: Novem ber 8, 20 17 s/ J oseph H. Rodriguez Hon. J oseph H. Rodriguez, UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
