ILNews

Workers settle employment lawsuit against local hotels

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sixteen current and former Indianapolis hotel workers have settled their union-backed lawsuit that alleged employment violations by nine area hotels and Atlanta-based Hospitality Staffing Solutions, a subcontractor that employs many hotel workers.

The plaintiffs claimed they were forced to work off the clock and through breaks. Terms of the settlement are confidential.

The lawsuit, which came as Indianapolis hotels were preparing for an onslaught of Super Bowl visitors, initially targeted 10 area hotels, but the Holiday Inn Select Indianapolis Airport was dropped from the suit. When attorneys filed the suit in January, they said they hoped it could become a class-action lawsuit and bring as much as $10 million in back pay to area hotel workers.

The settlement was reached before class-action status was addressed.

The allegations were made against the JW Marriott, Indianapolis Marriott Downtown, the Canterbury Hotel, the Conrad Indianapolis, Embassy Suites Downtown, Hyatt Regency Indianapolis, Hyatt Place Indianapolis Airport, the Omni Severin and the Westin Hotel.

Plaintiff Ava Sanchez said she is pleased with the outcome.

"I'm proud and excited because a small group of workers came together to raise our voices," the Greenwood resident said.

The lawsuit, led by the union Unite Here, prompted changes in industry practices that benefit those who still work in hotels, Sanchez said. Two of the 16 plaintiffs still work in hotels, but they no longer work through a staffing company, and they receive benefits like paid time off, said Sanchez, who works for the union as an organizer.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT