CASE C AAMPLE 14-4 Mejia v. New York Sheraton Hotel Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she was 459 F.Supp. 375 (N.Y. 1978) discharged on June 24, 1975 from her position as a chambermaid with the Sheraton Hotel on This is an employment discrimination case account of her Spanish surname and the fact that pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of her primary language was Spanish, and that two 1964....years earlier she was denied a promotion to a against because...of her national origin and was front office cashier position for the same reasons. not promoted because she was Spanish.... The defendants deny any discriminatory pur- The evidence in the case established beyond pose or effect of their conduct and assert that... peradventure of doubt a serious past and current the reason why plaintiff was not promoted to the inability on the plaintiff's part to articulate clearly or front office cashier position which she sought was coherently and to make herself adequately under- that she was not qualified by reason of the paucity stood in the English language. She continued of her English language ability and her lack of taking English courses after her discharge in the familiarity with office procedures. The facts estab- summers of 1975, 1976 and 1977 with minimal lished herein are the following. improvement. Her instructor's latest report card for Plaintiff is a female Dominican national who the 1977 session recites that she was a poor came to the United States in about 1970 as the student and definitely should not go on to [the holder of a visa entitling her to become employed next] level as she could not do the written work in this country. Her education and schooling and that pronunciation was also a problem. occurred abroad in a Spanish school and she ...Plaintiff's exhibition on the witness stand never had any education in the English language emphasized the current existence of an English until she arrived in this country. The plaintiff was language deficiency that made it quite difficult for employed as a chambermaid in the housekeeping the Court, the reporter and counsel to understand department of the Sheraton Hotel from on or about what she was saying in her testimonial responses. October 29, 1970 to on or about June 24, 1975. The requirement of the hotel for greater English During her employment, whatever ability she proficiency than the plaintiff can exhibit was sig- possessed to understand, speak and write English nificantly related to successful job performance she acquired through courses that she had taken and did not operate to exclude minority applicants in English at New York University during a period of at a higher rate than applicants who are not of that three months after her arrival here minority group. There is no doubt that the plaintiff The defendant [is] New York Sheraton Hotel.... was not sufficiently qualified to be placed in a Commencing in April 1973 the plaintiff enrolled position in the front office cashier's department. in an Industry Training Program, a program jointly The defendants found her not acceptable for such sponsored by plaintiff's Union and the city's hotel employment in a legitimate, nondiscriminatory industry to train hotel employees for positions manner....Plaintiff's Hispanic origin... formed no within the hotel industry....A week after her part of defendant's refusal to place her in the front training she applied for a position as a front office office cashier's department. Business necessities cashier. Such a job was never tendered to her.... precluded a person of plaintiff's qualifications from In 1974 there was an opening in the cashier's being placed in the front office cashier type department and plaintiff spoke to the manager but occupation in a large public hotel. The Sheraton she was told that she would have to learn to speak Hotel employs about 650 persons, more than a better English because the position required a third of whom are of Hispanic origin....Although greater aptitude than the plaintiff possessed. ... The plaintiff cannot be faulted for her eagerness to management found that the plaintiff's language advance from the position of a chambermaid to the barrier was a stumbling block to a front office post front office of the hotel, the evidence conclusively for the plaintiff, a post that would necessarily bring shows that she was never sufficiently qualified and her in contact and communication with the guests therefore was not eligible for the position she of the hotel.... sought in the defendant's front office.... Following her discharge, plaintiff resorted to the Accordingly, the complaint herein is EEOC charging that she was discriminated dismissed....Judgment for defendant. CASE QUESTION 1. Why was fluency in English important in the job the plaintiff sought? Why was it less important for her job as a chambermaid