fast. He was the first in line. Several white men employee serving the food stopped waiting on the plaintiff and others. When the plaintiff complained to the assistant manager, he left and prepared the plaintiff's order. Upon receiving his order, the plaintiff paid and left. In this action, the plaintiff claims the delay in his service was the result of racial discrimination. The court dismissed the plaintiff 's case stating, "In the instant case, plaintiff was not denied admittance or service his service was merely slow. While inconve nient, frustrating, and all too common, the mere fact of slow service in a fast-food restaurant does not, in the eyes of this Court, rise to the level of violating one's civil rights."21 In Case Example 3-1, the court similarly finds that bad service does not constitute discrimination. 22 CASE EXAMPLE 3-1 Sherman v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.can is denim want lon erosion joA 317 F.Supp.2d 609 (Md., 2004) The Plaintiff, Marcus Sherman, who is African-American, was locked out of his room at a Baltimore hotel while attending a professional conference in March 2003 when his room key became demag- netized. Unhappy with the treatment he received from hotel employees in obtaining a new key (and in later complaining about it), he filed this action for damages and injunctionelief ... pursuant to ... the Civil Rights Act of 1964... . ab snow ban spivise (T)he facts are as follows ... Plaintiff attended a professional conference at the hotel from on or about March 5 through March 7, 2003. On the evening of March 5, plaintiff worked out in the hotel gym until after 11:00 p.m. When he returned to his room from the gym, his electronic key card had become demagnetized and would not unlock the door. Plaintiff, dressed in athletic garb and sweating from his workout, went to the front desk to obtain assistance and/or a new key. At the front desk, plaintiff interacted with a white employee, Darren Kerr. 2d, 1338 (Ga. 2006) 21 Robertson v. Burger King, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 78 (La. 1994); See also Jackson v. Waffle House, Inc., 413 F.Supp. 22 Callwood v. Dave & Buster's, Inc., 98 F. Supp. 2d 694 (Md. 2000) 62 CHAPTER 3: Civil Rights and Hospitality BusinessesIt is undisputed that defendant's lock-out policy requires that a guest display identification matching the name in hotel records in order to obtain a new key. Under circumstances such as those facing plaintiff on March 5, in which the guest's identification is in his (locked) room, the policy requires that the guest be escorted to the room by hotel security to obtain the identification. According to plaintiff, the interaction between plaintiff and Kerr at the front desk was not pleasant. Plaintiff, who alleges that it took up to 19 minutes or so for Kerr to obtain assistance from a security officer to escort plaintiff to his room, regards certain statements of Kerr ("You could have come in off the street... ."') to have manifested a racially insensitive, if not racially discriminatory, attitude. In any event, an African-American security officer eventually escorted plaintiff to his room. Kerr had apparently in- structed plaintiff to return to the front desk after he had produced identification to the security officer to retrieve a replacement key; however, the security officer left plaintiff in his room and returned alone to the front desk to retrieve a new key for plaintiff. The replacement key was delivered to plaintiff's room. Apparently, plaintiff's decision to sue for damages based on the March 5 incident was made as a result of what he learned the next night during dinner with some of his professional colleagues. Spe- cifically, plaintiff learned that a white female professional acquaintance had checked into the hotel the day before plaintiff checked in, i.e., on March 4, 2003. Later on March 4, that colleague had locked herself out of her room. When she went to the front desk for assistance, the same front desk employee who had checked her in immediately reissued an additional key to her, without demand- ing identification, and in violation of the hotel's written lock-out policy... As a matter of law, plaintiff enjoyed the benefits and privileges, on the very same terms and conditions, q sili bellso of the contractual relationship offered by the defendant to any prospective guest. As a matter of law, the fact that an individual employee of the hotel deviated from the undisputed policy of the hotel in re- spect to lock-outs (by reissuing a key to a guest who had recently checked in and who was recognized by the employee) is not remotely probative of a claim of race discrimination based on proof that such an exception or deviation from the policy was not made (by a different hotel employee) when plaintiff was locked out of his room. However unpleasant plaintiff's interactions with hotel staff on the night of his lock-out might have been, ... no reasonable juror properly instructed on the law could reasonably conclude that application of a facially neutral lock-out policy, which requires that a guest be escorted to his room for identification, as applied to plaintiff on March 5, 2003, constituted an act of racial discrimination ... Moreover, this conclusion is not remotely called into question by undisputed proof that on some occasions, whether pursuant to an unofficial or informal "policy exception," or through the ad hoc and episodic deviations from the policy by individual employees, which common sense suggests are virtually certain to occur, some guests are provided replacement keys without displaying identification. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to summary judgment. bizong formal bloodnovo of fi galenso Iguivele as word grailw latord or is CASE QUESTIONS stod and loving annablenig 921hard to sisb bonstangu is grow effimild alsford edison of elabig sinoe bovorn hi 1. What facts did the Court consider to be most important in reaching its determination that the plaintiff was not discriminated against based upon his race? 2. Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not? ) SF-1 bEME ebngorg wordin no bazzanaib ($get It PCE.q 12 1 885