River Rock Casino has a certain something — let's call it heart — that makes you say, "I'm at home here. You'll find better food, better alexander casino rewards and the guaranteed loosest slots. You'll also find a come-as-you-are attitude and friendly folks who are enthusiastic about your good time. Select Language Spanish Chinese English. Home Gaming Gaming Slots Table Games High Limit Room Winners Play Video Poker Promotions. If you cannot view this video, please upgrade your browser to the newest alexander casino. TODAY AT Alexander casino ROCK CASINO.
An enterprise of the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians.
Stacy ALEXANDER and Kim Rogers, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Stacy Alexander and Kim Rogers are African—American women who used to work as cocktail waitresses for Casino Queen, Inc. They allege race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of42 U. The district court granted Casino Queen summary judgment on all three claims. We affirm as to the hostile work environment claim, but reverse and remand as to the alexander casino discrimination alexander casino retaliation claims.
Plaintiff Alexander casino worked at Casino Queen from until Julywhen she began an extended medical leave of absence. Her employment ultimately ended in February Plaintiff Rogers worked at Casino Queen from through Maywhen alexander casino voluntarily resigned.
Both were cocktail waitresses for the duration of their employment; neither ever applied for a different position. This lawsuit is alexander casino on Alexander's experiences between October 11, and Julyand Rogers' experiences between October 11, and May Plaintiffs' most significant allegation from a financial perspective concerns floor reassignments. Three to six cocktail waitresses worked the casino floor alexander casino any given time. Each waitress was alexander casino to cover a specific area of the casino floor e.
The waitresses periodically bid on shift assignments based on their seniority. ByAlexander and Rogers were the second- and sixth-most senior waitresses, alexander casino, allowing them to win their preferred areas of the casino floor. On days when a waitress was absent or went home early, the remaining waitresses received new floor assignments, for that day only, to ensure that the casino floor was fully covered.
For instance, Alexander alleges that in Julyshe was removed from her lucrative table-game area click three consecutive days alexander casino cover for another waitress on medical leave. A less senior white waitress covered Alexander's area. Relatedly, Alexander also alleges that in lateshe bid for and received an area with dollar slot machines, which was considered alexander casino good-tip area.
A few months later, though, the boundaries of her assigned area were redrawn without conducting a rebidand as a result, she lost the dollar slots and a white waitress received them. Alexander casino next allege that they were disciplined more harshly than their white colleagues with respect to tardies, absences, breaks, and eating at work. On both October 3 and November alexander casino,Alexander claims that she was written up for being tardy when she was actually on time.
She asked the H. Director for copies of her time-clock records. On November 6, Alexander was one minute late, and Casino Queen then suspended her for a day because of alexander casino three alleged tardies, resulting in a day of lost pay and tips.
Rogers, too, was written up for being late on November 3,even though time records showed that she clocked in at 7: Plaintiffs say that a white cocktail waitress, Kim Lay, arrived late to work 42 times in an eleven-month period, according to Rogers' notes. In its brief, Casino Queen says that under the CBA, eight tardies in a rolling 12—month period results in an employee's suspension.
Plaintiffs state that nine tardies in a rolling 12—month period results in termination. Alexander casino Lay was still alexander casino at the casino when Rogers left in May Plaintiffs also allege that when they arrived to work quite late—between one and 2.
The situation was handled differently, however, when the cocktail waitress was white. Similarly, on July 13, alexander casino, Kim Lay allegedly was more than one hour late, but was allowed to work her shift.
On February 16 and 24,Alexander was written up alexander casino absences that should have counted as leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of Alexander involved her union and was reinstated after missing seven days of work. She recovered her base pay for those seven days, but not the tips she would have earned. On December 21,and again in AprilCarey wrote up Alexander for stopping at the restroom after her authorized lunch break before she returned to the casino floor.
Alexander says the grand and casino she saw white cocktail waitresses repeatedly do this; in fact, Alexander and Rogers allegedly saw white waitresses taking extended breaks with Carey, including at times that these waitresses were not scheduled for breaks. Carey also wrote up Rogers for spending too much time standing at the bar when Rogers was actually waiting to pick up drinks.
In contrast, Rogers says that white waitresses, on stage 7 casino occasions, stood at the bar talking to each other or white bartenders for extended periods. On November 17,Rogers saw cocktail waitress Kim Lay talking on the casino floor to her boyfriend, who was also a casino employee.
Carey allegedly walked by the couple twice before saying something to them. On June 20,Rogers received a write-up for having food at her work area—a violation of company policy. When Rogers see more the write-up to the union representative, he told her that on the same day, a white cocktail waitress named Brandie was caught by management alexander casino food alexander casino the bar.
Brandie's food was taken away but she did not receive a write-up. Rogers saw white cocktail waitresses eating on the casino floor many times, including Corena Piatt on four specific dates in ; it is unclear, however, whether management saw these incidents.
Finally, in MarchRogers told H. Rogers said that she thought Carey was harassing and retaliating against her. Rogers alleges that Carey denied her requests for vacation or personal days without explanation, but routinely approved alexander casino cocktail waitresses' requests.
In late MayCarey allegedly denied Rogers' request for a day off the following Thursday. A few days later Carey approved the request of Michelle, alexander casino white cocktail waitress, for a day off the following Sunday. Plaintiffs state that Sundays were busier than Thursdays. In addition, in DecemberRogers' aunt died and she asked Carey for an emergency day off to attend the funeral. Carey denied this alexander casino. Several months later, Carey granted a white waitress's request for an emergency day off because a relative was threatening suicide.
Rogers slot 1 that on May 20,she attempted to give two weeks' notice that she alexander casino resigning; white cocktail waitresses such as Alexander casino Turner, Kim Gann, and Brandie had publicly announced their resignations and then continued to work for two alexander casino afterward.
But the day that Rogers gave two weeks' notice, Casino Queen's H. Rogers asked if she could revoke her notice and work two more weeks, but was told she could not. She reported to work the next day anyway, but Casino Www bet4game eu security guards escorted her out of the casino. Rogers received planet 7 casino points comp base pay for those two weeks, but not the tips she would have earned.
Plaintiffs protested Casino Queen's alleged discrimination, but to no avail. Rogers repeatedly lodged internal complaints, complained to Carey alexander casino she thought she was being treated differently because of her race, filed race discrimination complaints with alexander casino H.
Director, protested to a general manager, and complained to Carey's boss, Dominic Gramaglia, that her floor der casino austin tx Ursache caused her to alexander casino tips. On one occasion, Gramaglia accused Rogers of insubordination and alexander casino her home early. Intwo Casino Queen officials interviewed Rogers about her race discrimination complaints and said they would conduct alexander casino investigation.
Rogers says that she never heard back from them or anyone else about an alexander casino. Alexander filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC in Novemberand Rogers followed suit in February Plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court in Inthe district court granted Casino Queen's alexander casino for summary judgment on all three claims race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.
The district court reasoned that plaintiffs did not prove an adverse employment action, which doomed their race discrimination and retaliation claims.
The court also rejected their hostile work environment claim. We review the district court's decision de novo, construing all facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Alexander and Rogers. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue alexander casino to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment alexander casino a matter of law.
In order to address alexander casino substantive allegations, we must first alexander casino what evidence to consider; plaintiffs seek to rely on not only their own allegations, but also the depositions in another case, Riley—Jackson v.
After deciding this evidentiary question, we will alexander casino plaintiffs' race discrimination claim, followed by their hostile work environment and retaliation claims.
In Riley—Jackson, 72 African—American cocktail waitresses sued Casino Queen for race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Before that case settled, the parties took several depositions, some of which plaintiffs seek to rely on here.
The weight of authority is that depositions can be the equivalent of affidavits, and are therefore admissible at the summary judgment stage. App'x10th Cir. If the deposition was taken under oath and alexander casino based on personal knowledge, it is at least the equivalent of an affidavit. We agree with the plaintiffs that, in a proper case, depositions from one case may be alexander casino at the summary judgment stage of another, even if Rule 32 a 8 's requirements are not met.
Two conditions must be met for a case to be proper. First, the deposition must satisfy Rule 56's requirements for an affidavit or declaration—i. To alexander casino the second requirement, the alexander casino here needed to create a docket entry, with attachments, to ensure that the relevant Riley—Jackson materials were part of the record in the plaintiffs' case. The plaintiffs did not take this action—they never filed the Riley—Jackson depositions as part of the record in this case.
Therefore, we cannot consider the Riley—Jackson depositions. Plaintiffs contend that Casino Queen discriminated against them because of their race, in violation of Title VII. Plaintiffs alleging discrimination can survive summary judgment through the direct or indirect method of proof or both.
Plaintiffs here proceed under both methods. Under the direct method, plaintiffs must alexander casino either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence that supports an inference of intentional discrimination.
Direct evidence requires an admission of discriminatory intent, i. Ultimately, a plaintiff facing summary judgment must produce sufficient evidence that a rational jury could conclude that the employer took the adverse action against the this web page because she belongs to a protected class.
Under the indirect method, plaintiffs must first make out a prima facie case of discrimination, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. Rockledge Furniture, LLC, F. If Casino Queen meets this burden, the burden returns alexander casino the plaintiffs to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proffered reason is a pretext alexander casino race discrimination.
Casino Queen concedes the first two elements under the indirect method—membership in a alexander casino class and meeting its legitimate expectations. We proceed now to the third and fourth elements. Because we ultimately conclude that alexander casino can avoid summary judgment based on the indirect method of proof, we alexander casino not address their arguments under the direct method, although they remain this web page to offer alexander casino relevant evidence at trial.
The district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not prove that they suffered an adverse employment action. Under our precedents, the floor reassignments in this case alexander casino an adverse employment action because of the relative importance that tips had for alexander casino cocktail waitresses, given their compensation structure and the alleged frequency of these reassignments.
Together, these points demonstrate a significant financial impact. It is Conversion caesars casino download gibt that patrons pay these tips, not the employer; thus, the causal connection is not immediate.
At the summary judgment stage, we credit plaintiffs' allegation that Casino Queen supervisors knew that some areas average higher tips than others. But testimony based on first-hand experience is none of those things. Plaintiffs' claims are based on alexander casino experience: Alexander and Rogers worked at Casino Queen for 18 and 15 years respectively, providing alexander casino basis for their statements in the record that they were reassigned up to twice per week, that these reassignments often took them to completely different and less lucrative areas of the casino alexander casino, and alexander casino these reassignments hurt them financially.
At this stage, that suffices. Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence of an adverse employment action to get to a jury. The remaining requirement in establishing a prima facie case of zur casino theme dress ideas Anwendungen discrimination is that plaintiffs demonstrate that at least one similarly situated employee, outside of their protected class, was treated more favorably than they were.
We consider all relevant factors in making this determination, including whether the similarly situated employee held the same position, had alexander casino same supervisor, was subject to the same standards, and engaged in similar conduct.
Plaintiffs allege that white cocktail waitresses received systematically better treatment because the white cocktail waitresses 1 were reassigned to higher tip areas each week, even though they were often less senior; 2 alexander casino repeatedly disciplined more favorably e. Plaintiffs therefore make out a prima facie case. The burden now shifts to Casino Queen to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiffs' treatment.
With respect to disciplinary issues, Casino Queen argues that it simply disciplined alexander casino for violations of company policy. With respect to floor reassignments, Casino Queen relies on the account of Kelly Carey, the plaintiffs' supervisor. Carey claims that floor reassignments were done in a race-neutral fashion alexander casino to various preexisting floor plans—not according to the CBA. The reassignment plan diagrams appear to support plaintiffs' testimony because they show plans for adding contiguous areas of the casino floor.
At this stage, we must credit the plaintiffs' account. And in any event, this potentially after-the-fact justification could be merely a pretext for discrimination.
The alexander casino is the appropriate body to resolve these credibility disputes. Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiffs have established a race discrimination claim. Plaintiffs next allege that Casino Queen created a hostile work environment by subjecting them to unfair suspensions, financially harmful floor reassignments, unjustified write-ups, and unusually close supervision.
Plaintiffs state that Casino Queen knew about, but failed to remedy, their complaints of race discrimination. Plaintiffs' allegations are serious, but they do not quite rise to the level required to meet this test. We assume that this work environment was subjectively offensive, that the objectionable conduct was frequent, alexander casino that Casino Queen did alexander casino to respond to complaints of discrimination.
Alexander and Rogers' final allegation is that Casino Queen unlawfully retaliated against them by reassigning them to less lucrative areas of the casino floor, wrongly alexander casino Alexander even though she was ultimately reinstatedremoving the high-tip dollar slots from Alexander's assigned area, not permitting Rogers to work for two weeks after submitting her resignation notice, and Gramaglia's accusing Alexander of insubordination and sending her home for click here alexander casino after Alexander complained about discriminatory floor assignments.
Like a discrimination claim, a claim of retaliation may be alexander casino through the direct or indirect method of proof. If plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Casino Queen to produce a non-discriminatory reason for its employment action. In this case, the parties agree here plaintiffs engaged in statutorily protected activity.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM as to the hostile work environment claim, but REVERSE and REMAND as to the race discrimination and retaliation claims.
October 11, is the date that Alexander and Alexander casino filed their first lawsuit against click Queen.
The district court dismissed that suit due to the misconduct of the plaintiffs' then-attorney, and we affirmed, see Alexander v. App'x 7th Cir. Plaintiffs technically bring their discrimination and retaliation claims under both Title VII and 42 U.
Alexander casino analyze both claims under Title VII because the analysis for these two claims is generally the same under either statute.
Again, the first two requirements of the prima facie case are not in dispute. With respect to the third requirement, plaintiffs have alleged, inter alia, frequent removal from their high-tip areas of the casino alexander casino in favor of white waitresses; Alexander's wrongful termination, which cost her seven days' worth of tips; Casino Queen's removing high-tip dollar slots from Alexander's assigned area; and Rogers' losing the opportunity to alexander casino two weeks' worth of tips after she submitted her notice of resignation.
For the reasons spirit casino online slots above, plaintiffs also meet the similarly situated requirement, and the jury is the appropriate body to resolve the alexander casino of fact regarding Casino Queen's proffered reasons for these decisions.
Not a Legal Alexander casino Visit our consumer site. Edit Your Profile Log Out. Forms Lawyer Marketing Corporate Counsel Law Students JusticeMail Reference. FindLaw Caselaw United States US 7th Cir. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
January 08, Before FLAUM and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and KAPALA, District Judge. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs—Appellants. Background Plaintiff Alexander worked at Casino Queen from until Julywhen alexander casino began an extended medical leave of absence.
Floor reassignments Plaintiffs' most significant allegation from a financial perspective concerns floor reassignments. Discipline Plaintiffs next allege that they leaf green slots best disciplined more harshly than their white colleagues with respect to tardies, absences, alexander casino, and eating at work.
Privileges Rogers alleges that Carey denied her requests for vacation or personal days without explanation, but routinely approved white cocktail waitresses' alexander casino. Discussion We review the district court's decision de novo, construing all facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Alexander and Rogers.
The Alexander casino depositions In Riley—Jackson, 72 African—American cocktail waitresses sued Casino Queen for race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Race discrimination Plaintiffs contend that Casino Queen discriminated against them because of their race, in violation of Title VII.
Adverse employment action The district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not prove that they suffered alexander casino adverse employment action. Similarly situated employee The remaining requirement in establishing a prima continue reading case of race discrimination is that plaintiffs read article that at least one similarly situated employee, outside of their protected class, was alexander casino more favorably than they were.
Legitimate, non-discriminatory reason The burden now shifts to Casino Queen to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiffs' treatment. Hostile work environment Plaintiffs next allege that Casino Queen created a hostile work environment by subjecting them to unfair suspensions, financially harmful floor reassignments, unjustified write-ups, and unusually close alexander casino. Retaliation Alexander and Rogers' final allegation is that Casino Queen unlawfully retaliated against them by reassigning them to less lucrative areas of the casino floor, wrongly terminating Alexander even though she was ultimately reinstatedremoving the high-tip dollar slots from Alexander's assigned area, not permitting Rogers to work for just click for source weeks after submitting her resignation notice, and Gramaglia's accusing Alexander of insubordination and sending her home for the day after Alexander complained about discriminatory floor assignments.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM as to the hostile work environment claim, but REVERSE and REMAND as to the race discrimination and retaliation claims. FindLaw Career Center Attorney Corporate Counsel Academic Judicial Clerk Summer Associate Intern Law Librarian Paralegal Legal Secretary Law Enforcement District Attorney Legal Investigator Compliance Officer Investment Banker Business Development Post a Job View More Jobs View More.
Research the law Manage your practice Manage alexander casino career News and commentary Get Legal Forms About us Find Us On.