Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Los Angeles

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/26/2021 11:55 AM Sherri R.
Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk

21STCV15584
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Malcolm Mackey
1 LAUREN TEUKOLSKY (SBN 211381)

(Email: [email protected])
2 TEUKOLSKY LAW, APC
201 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 305
3 Pasadena, California 91101
Tel: (626) 522-8982
4 Fax: (626) 522-8983
5
JEREMY J. BLASI (SBN 298148)
6 (Email: [email protected])
ZOE O. TUCKER (SBN 336712)
7 (Email: [email protected])
UNITE HERE LOCAL 11
8 464 Lucas Ave # 201
Los Angeles, CA 90017
9 Tel: (213) 481-8530 x 233
Fax: (213) 481-0352
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff April Blackwell
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14 Case No.
15 COMPLAINT
16 APRIL BLACKWELL, 1. Harassment (Hostile Work Environment) in
Violation of FEHA;
17 Plaintiff,
18 2. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;
v.
19 CHATEAU HOLDINGS, LTD, a California 3. Discrimination in Violation of FEHA;
limited partnership, dba CHATEAU MARMONT;
20 and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and
21 Harassment in Violation of FEHA;
Defendants.
22 5. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
Policy;
23
6. Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Cal.
24 Labor Code § 1102.5;
25 7. Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Cal.

Labor Code § 6310;
26
8. Negligence
27 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 Plaintiff April Blackwell hereby brings this action against Defendant Chateau Holdings,
2 Ltd., doing business as Chateau Marmont (“Defendant” or “Chateau”), and on information and
3 belief alleges as follows:
4 JURISDICTION
5 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims based on, among other statutes,
6 California Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. This case falls within the Court’s unlimited
7 jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.
8 VENUE
9 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil
10 Procedure §§ 395(a) and 395.5 because the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant within Los
11 Angeles County. Further, the acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in Los Angeles,
12 California, within the County of Los Angeles.
13 PARTIES
14 3. Plaintiff April Blackwell is an individual over the age of eighteen residing in Los
15 Angeles, California, in the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff was formerly employed by Chateau
16 Marmont.
17 4. Defendant Chateau Holdings, Ltd. is and at all times mentioned herein was a
18 California limited partnership doing business as Chateau Marmont in the County of Los Angeles.
19 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20 Chateau Marmont: Where a “Drug-Fueled Culture” Meets Racial Hierarchy
21 5. Hollywood’s legendary Chateau Marmont touts itself as the place where rich and
22 famous people can misbehave without repercussions. Within its discreet, exclusive environment,
23 the Chateau has long played loose with liquor laws and indulged illicit drug use. Before its
24 employees started coming forward with stories of a “toxic, drug-fueled culture” in 2020, 1 the
25
26 1
Mara Siegler, Chateau Marmont employees claim hotel has toxic, drug-fueled culture, PAGE SIX (Oct. 12,
2020, 10:25 a.m. PST), https://pagesix.com/2020/10/12/chateau-marmont-employees-claim-hotel-has-toxic-
27 drug-fueled-
culture/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons.
28
-1-
1 Chateau was widely known for sordid or tragic anecdotes of celebrity drug use, from John
2 Belushi’s fatal overdose in a Chateau bungalow in 1982 2 to Heath Ledger’s participation in a
3 paparazzi-staged “cocaine party” in 2006. 3
4 6. Chateau managers have generally condoned such drug use, whether tacitly or
5 overtly. As former longtime Managing Director Philip Pavel put it in an interview, his role in
6 facilitating the Chateau’s party atmosphere was “about allowing people to embrace it, but also
7 making sure no one overdoses.” 4 Indeed, a media report published last year described parties
8 where guests and even owner Andre Balazs himself have openly used drugs on the property, with
9 favored guests reportedly snorting cocaine off dinner plates in the middle of the Chateau
10 restaurant. 5 The Chateau is also unusually permissive with alcohol, regularly serving it to in-
11 room guests between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. in violation of California law.
12 7. As part of its party atmosphere and celebrity-oriented image, the Chateau
13 maintains a racially stratified hierarchy among its employees, filling the majority of less-
14 desirable positions with workers of color and elevating young, thin, and light-skinned or white
15 workers to the most visible and desirable front-of-the-house positions. A more explicit racism
16 also pervades the Chateau’s atmosphere: Managing Director Amanda Grandinetti, who has
17 worked at the Chateau for seventeen years and who is white, has reportedly made numerous
18 racist comments to employees of color. For example, a recent article reported that Ms.
19 Grandinetti told a favored African-American employee, “you’re my blackie,” and joked with
20 another employee of color to answer her, “yes, amassa,” invoking an antebellum slave
21
2
22 Adrian Glick Kudler, A totally incomplete history of trouble at the Chateau Marmont, L.A. CURBED (July
30, 2019 10:50 a.m. PST), https://la.curbed.com/2013/6/26/10227258/chateau-marmont-hotel-history-deaths.
23 3
Steve Gorman, Lawsuit says paparazzi gave Heath Ledger drugs, REUTERS (Apr. 11, 2008, 7:28 p.m.
PST), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ledger/lawsuit-says-paparazzi-gave-heath-ledger-drugs-
24 idUSN1144043020080412.
4
25 Janelle Brown, The Chateau Marmont is Ready for Its Close-Up, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 3, 2010),
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/fashion/05Chateau.html.
26 5
See Gary Baum, Rot at Hollywood’s ‘Playground’: Chateau Marmont Staff Allege Racial Discrimination,
Sexual Misconduct and Neglectful Management, HOLLYWOOD REP. (Sept. 16, 2020, 6:45 a.m. PDT),
27 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/rot-at-hollywoods-playground-chateau-marmont-staff-allege-
racial-discrimination-sexual-misconduct-and-neglectful-management.
28
-2-
1 stereotype. 6 Ms. Grandinetti used her final stamp of approval in hiring decisions to carefully
2 maintain the “look” on which the Chateau’s glamorous brand depended.
3 8. The two forces of the Chateau’s uniquely permissive party culture and its racial
4 hierarchy unfortunately convened on April Blackwell, a 36-year old Black woman who worked
5 as a part-time night auditor from approximately December 2014 to December 2019, with a hiatus
6 from January 2017 to June 2018. Ms. Blackwell typically worked at the Chateau’s front desk on
7 Friday and Saturday nights from 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. until 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. She was responsible
8 for all front desk matters overnight, such as accounting, valet charges, requests from guest
9 rooms, and any other issues that arose throughout the night.
10 9. As night auditor, Ms. Blackwell was typically the only person working in the front
11 desk area, other than a security guard who might be stationed near the entrance or lobby of the
12 hotel. In the mornings at the end of virtually every shift, Ms. Blackwell wrote email reports to
13 management, whether or not there had been a notable incident in the night. Ms. Blackwell was
14 skilled at the job of night auditor, which was difficult to fill.
15 A Pattern of Guest Mistreatment and Management Indifference
16 10. Soon after Ms. Blackwell started her employment at Chateau, she began to
17 experience racist and threatening behavior from guests. The first memorable incident involved
18 the guest of a longtime Chateau patron. One night in late 2015, the guest came to the front desk
19 apparently inebriated and demanded that Ms. Blackwell give him a key to the longtime patron’s
20 room. The patron had earlier instructed Ms. Blackwell not to give the guest a key. When Ms.
21 Blackwell refused his request, the guest became extremely upset, yelled and cursed at her, and
22 called her the N-word.
23 11. Ms. Blackwell wrote an email to then-Managing Director Phil Pavel describing the
24 incident, and that guest was blacklisted from the hotel in the future. Because the guest was not
25 himself a paying customer but rather a guest of a paying customer, Ms. Blackwell noted that it
26 did not directly financially affect the Chateau to blacklist him. Still, Ms. Blackwell appreciated
27
6
Id.
28
-3-
1 that one of her managers had her back in this situation. This would be the only time she felt this
2 way during her tenure at the Chateau.
3 12. The next notable incident occurred in early October 2016, when a different regular
4 Chateau guest badly wanted cigarettes in the middle of the night. The guest called the front desk
5 around 3:30 a.m. and asked Ms. Blackwell to get him cigarettes. Ms. Blackwell explained that
6 the front desk had run out cigarettes it typically maintained for guests and that he would have to
7 wait until the next employee arrived for their shift at 7:00 a.m.
8 13. The guest became enraged. He yelled and cursed at Ms. Blackwell and threatened
9 that she “better find cigarettes” and bring them up to his room, or words to that effect. He called
10 Ms. Blackwell a “bitch.” Because management prohibited Ms. Blackwell from leaving the hotel
11 during her shift, she remained firm with the guest and ended the call.
12 14. Later that night, the guest called Ms. Blackwell again and yelled and cursed at her,
13 asking again where the cigarettes were. Ms. Blackwell repeated that she did not have any, and
14 the guest finally gave up.
15 15. Ms. Blackwell regularly dealt with obnoxious guests in the middle of the night as
16 night auditor, but she was shaken by the threatening and unhinged tone of this guest’s calls.
17 16. After the incident, Ms. Blackwell wrote an email to Mr. Pavel, her supervisor, and
18 a Human Resources representative. Ms. Blackwell reported what had happened and requested
19 that the guest be prohibited from staying at the Chateau in the future. She stated: “I really hope
20 that all managers here think about what we are doing catering to someone like this. No one
21 deserves to be abused from a guest. . . . I would hope that Andre wouldn’t allow a person like
22 this to abuse his employees over and over. . . .” At the time, Ms. Blackwell understood that the
23 guest was close with either Mr. Balazs or Mr. Pavel.
24 17. About two days later, Mr. Pavel gave Ms. Blackwell a $250 gift card to a massage
25 studio in West Hollywood. Ms. Blackwell interpreted this as a thank-you gesture for putting up
26 with the guest’s behavior, as well as a form of “hush money” encouraging her not to complain
27 further. She sent another email to management stating that she was “upset and disappointed” by
28
-4-
1 the gesture because “it felt like that was supposed to make it better for now and keep me quiet.
2 No action was taken and this man is still here treating staff horribly.”
3 18. Less than two weeks later, a coworker told Ms. Blackwell that the same guest had
4 allegedly physically assaulted his girlfriend in his hotel room and had been ejected from the
5 Chateau. Ms. Blackwell wrote a follow-up email to her supervisor and Human Resources
6 expressing frustration that they had failed to take proper corrective action in response to her
7 previous complaint that the guest had been abusive and threatening. Her supervisor responded
8 that the guest would not be “welcome back here anymore,” but also stated: “I don’t know why he
9 stayed here for as long as he did and got away with so much,” confirming that the Chateau knew
10 about the guest’s abusive and inappropriate behavior but failed to address it properly.
11 19. Also in 2016, Ms. Blackwell had another experience in which a manager
12 downplayed an offensive comment that was made to her—this time, an overtly racist comment.
13 Ms. Blackwell was chatting with a fellow employee, a white woman from the South, and a Guest
14 Relations Manager, who is also white. The fellow employee said to Ms. Blackwell, referring to
15 the South before the Civil War, “back then, I could have owned you,” or words to that effect.
16 20. Ms. Blackwell was stunned and asked the employee to repeat what she said. The
17 Guest Relations Manager interrupted before the employee could answer and said, “nothing, she
18 didn’t say anything,” as if to make the problem go away. Ms. Blackwell let the matter go, and
19 she was careful to avoid interacting with the employee as much as possible in the future.
20 21. Ms. Blackwell felt extremely uncomfortable that a fellow employee made a joke
21 about her being a slave—and that the manager who directly witnessed this comment tried to
22 pretend it did not happen. As with Mr. Pavel’s response to the episode of the guest who verbally
23 harassed Ms. Blackwell because he wanted cigarettes, Ms. Blackwell felt that the Guest
24 Relations Manager did not take this highly inappropriate and overtly racist comment as seriously
25 as he should have.
26
27
28
-5-
1 22. In January 2017, Ms. Blackwell voluntarily left the Chateau for about a year and
2 six months because she temporarily moved away from Los Angeles. She returned to Los
3 Angeles and to her position at Chateau in or around June 2018.
4 23. While Ms. Blackwell did not feel that her complaints were taken seriously enough
5 by management, she found that the problem worsened after she returned in 2018, in part because
6 Amanda Grandinetti had taken over from Pavel as Managing Director.
7 24. In or about the early Summer of 2019, Ms. Blackwell was stationed at the front
8 desk late one night when she overheard a belligerent male guest downstairs having a
9 confrontation with Salvador Perez, familiarly known as “Pop,” an older employee who cleaned
10 the Chateau overnight. Concerned for Pop’s safety, Ms. Blackwell left the front desk and went
11 downstairs to see what was happening.
12 25. When she arrived on the scene, the guest, who appeared to be drunk or under the
13 influence of drugs, insulted and cursed at Ms. Blackwell, and calling her “bitch” and the N-word,
14 among other things. Finally, another guest intervened and eventually convinced the offending
15 guest to leave the hotel.
16 26. Ms. Blackwell sent an email report about this incident the next morning to Ms.
17 Grandinetti and Hotel Manager Carly Skinner.
18 27. Rather than take proper corrective action to address Ms. Blackwell’s report of the
19 guest’s threatening and offensive conduct, Ms. Grandinetti summoned Ms. Blackwell to the hotel
20 restaurant bar, where guests and other employees were present, and reprimanded her for leaving
21 her post at the front desk. When Ms. Blackwell explained that she left the front desk out of
22 concern for Pop’s safety, Ms. Grandinetti responded that Ms. Blackwell could not leave the front
23 desk unstaffed for a single moment because Mr. Balasz might call unexpectedly and would be
24 upset if she did not answer. Discouraged but not wanting to push the matter further, Ms.
25 Blackwell agreed that she would do her best to stay at the front desk in the future.
26 28. To Ms. Blackwell’s knowledge, the Chateau took no corrective action in response
27 to this incident.
28
-6-
1 29. Several months later, in Fall 2019, the regular patron who hosted frequent parties
2 at the Chateau, and whose guest had called Ms. Blackwell the N-word in 2015, phoned Ms.
3 Blackwell at the front desk late one night. The patron had relied on Ms. Blackwell many times
4 before to remove his own guests from his room or assist with other requests. On this particular
5 night, the patron was once again hosting a party that grew out of control and insisted that Ms.
6 Blackwell help him remove his belligerent guests. Following Ms. Grandinetti’s instructions, Ms.
7 Blackwell responded that she could not leave her post to help him. But the guest continued to
8 call Ms. Blackwell to insist that she help him, and she eventually left the front desk to go to his
9 room to resolve the situation.
10 30. When Ms. Blackwell reported this incident the next morning as part of her routine
11 reports, Ms. Grandinetti again summoned her to the restaurant bar and reprimanded her for her
12 decision to leave the front desk, in full view of other employees and hotel guests. Ms. Blackwell
13 felt publicly shamed, as Ms. Grandinetti subjected her to a condescending tongue lashing in front
14 of colleagues and guests. When Ms. Blackwell attempted to explain that she had left the front
15 desk to help eject intoxicated guests who were behaving inappropriately, Ms. Grandinetti
16 interrupted Ms. Blackwell by scolding, “No April, I’m going to talk, and you’re going to listen,”
17 or words to that effect.
18 31. Ms. Blackwell was mortified by the conversation, and wished that Ms. Grandinetti
19 had administered the reprimand in her private office. Indeed, several co-workers later asked Ms.
20 Blackwell what had been going on in that conversation and if she was doing all right.
21 32. After carefully using her professional judgment to deescalate yet another situation
22 of a drunk, demanding guest, being met with Ms. Grandinetti’s demeaning treatment felt
23 especially hurtful to Ms. Blackwell.
24 33. Ms. Blackwell felt singled out for discriminatory treatment because she did not
25 witness Ms. Grandinetti reprimanding any white employees in front of others, or speaking to
26 them in such a condescending tone.
27
28
-7-
1 The Final Incident
2 34. The final incident occurred in December 2019. A regular Chateau guest from a
3 notoriously wealthy family, who was white, was staying at the Chateau in December 2019. At
4 the time of this stay, the guest had already accumulated a history of misbehavior. His restaurant
5 guest profile labeled him a “frequent guest” with 372 visits to the hotel restaurant. Over the
6 years, employees provided feedback on the guest profile, noting that he disregarded several
7 requests to stop smoking in certain areas, was “so rude to the entire staff!!!!!,” stole candles,
8 “thinks he is KING of the chateau,” was “rude to housekeeping,” was “very annoying:
9 ENTITLED!!!,” was “becoming a bit too entitled and aggro,” “got angry at a very nice
10 [person],” and “can get rowdy with his room parties.” One entry stated, “[I]t might be time to
11 reign [sic] him in.”
12 35. On the night of December 21, 2019, the guest and several of his friends were
13 acting generally rowdy around the hotel, appearing to be under the influence of alcohol and/or
14 drugs. At one point in the evening, one of the guest’s friends took off his shirt and did push-ups
15 at the front desk in front of Ms. Blackwell and other guests. The party later retreated to other
16 parts of the hotel.
17 36. At around 4:15 a.m., Ms. Blackwell was working on the computer in the back
18 office and saw the guest appear at the front desk via the security camera. The security guard on
19 duty, a white man, was at the front desk and offered to help the guest. The guest refused the
20 security guard’s help and instead yelled to Ms. Blackwell in the back office, demanding that she
21 come to the front desk.
22 37. When Ms. Blackwell emerged from the back office, she asked the guest, “How can
23 I help you?” The security guard retreated to the back office, where he continued to monitor the
24 situation via the security cameras.
25 38. The guest had apparently lost his room key and asked for a replacement. He
26 immediately started yelling at Ms. Blackwell and was acting “very aggressive,” according to the
27 security incident report. Ms. Blackwell told him that she had already given him the maximum
28
-8-
1 number of room keys because he kept losing the copies, but that she could have a security guard
2 let him into his room.
3 39. The guest refused this offer and continued to act extremely agitated, asking, “What
4 kind of service is this?” and “Do you know who I am?” He leaned in toward Ms. Blackwell
5 across the desk and waved his hands in her face. The security guard returned to the front desk
6 and tried to calm the guest down, asking him not to curse and yell at the staff.
7 40. The guest responded, “Shut the fuck up,” and, “You don’t know who you’re
8 messing with.” The guest also yelled that he was “friends with Andre,” and repeated the
9 question, “Do you know who I am?” Finally, the guest raised his hand threateningly above his
10 shoulder level, as if to strike Ms. Blackwell across her face. Ms. Blackwell was scared that he
11 was going to attack her. She said, “Are you going to hit me? Do you hit women?”
12 41. The security guard, who had been standing behind the desk, immediately walked
13 around to the guest’s side of the front desk and tried to calm him down.
14 42. Ms. Blackwell explained again that the guest already had all his room keys, but the
15 guest kept yelling, “Give me my fucking key!” According to the security report, the guest “ran
16 through a barrage of insults and threats,” saying, “I’ll call the fucking cops on your ass,” and
17 “Who are you, you fucking loser?” The guest said that after he was done with Ms. Blackwell, she
18 wouldn’t have a job anymore, that this was her last day, and other words to that effect.
19 43. Finally, Ms. Blackwell located the front desk copy of the key and said the guest
20 could borrow it to get into his room. Growing upset and afraid by the guest’s verbal abuse and
21 his physical threat, Ms. Blackwell tossed the key over the front desk toward him. Ms. Blackwell
22 also said to the guest, “You don’t know how to talk to people,” and, “You’re not gonna talk to
23 me like that,” or words to that effect.
24 44. The guest yelled back at her, “You fucking maniac!” The guest continued to insult
25 her, calling Ms. Blackwell “bitch” and “piece of shit.” The guest also yelled at Ms. Blackwell,
26 “What are we, in the ghetto?”
27
28
-9-
1 45. Ms. Blackwell then retreated to the back office while the security guard continued
2 to try to calm the guest down. The guest eventually went back to his room.
3 46. Around 4:45 a.m., the guest returned to the front desk. He demanded to know the
4 names of Ms. Blackwell and the security guard, and continued aggressively cursing and
5 threatening to get them both fired. The guest continued this behavior until he finally returned to
6 his room.
7 47. Ms. Blackwell was extremely shaken by the guest’s racist and sexist verbal attack
8 and threatened physical violence. She reported the encounter to Hotel Manager Carly Skinner
9 the next morning. In response, Ms. Skinner said, “I don’t know, I’ll have to talk to Amanda
10 [Grandinetti],” or words to that effect. Ms. Blackwell asked, “What do you mean, you don’t
11 know?” Ms. Skinner responded, “He has a lot of money, so I don’t know,” or words to that
12 effect.
13 48. Ms. Blackwell had a meeting about the incident with Ms. Skinner and Ms.
14 Grandinetti the following Wednesday. As with the earlier 2019 incident, Ms. Grandinetti failed
15 to address the harassment and physical threats that Ms. Blackwell experienced at the hands of the
16 guest. Instead, Ms. Grandinetti scolded Ms. Blackwell for being unprofessional because Ms.
17 Blackwell acknowledged that she raised her voice at the guest in response to his abuse. Ms.
18 Grandinetti told Ms. Blackwell that she should stay home from work until they figured out how
19 to address the situation.
20 49. The Chateau allowed the guest to stay for the entirety of his booked stay after
21 verbally abusing and physically threatening Ms. Blackwell, and reportedly also allowed him to
22 extend his stay for an extra week. The Chateau paid Ms. Blackwell to stay home the next
23 weekend.
24 50. The following week, on December 31, 2019, Ms. Blackwell was called in for a
25 meeting with Ms. Grandinetti. When Ms. Blackwell arrived, another employee whom Ms.
26 Blackwell did not know was already in Ms. Grandinetti’s office. To Ms. Blackwell’s
27
28
-10-
1 knowledge, this employee did not have a management or Human Resources role, and seemed to
2 be present only as a witness to the conversation.
3 51. Ms. Blackwell could see that there were termination papers already filled out on
4 Ms. Grandinetti’s desk. On the “Notification of Change in Employment Relationship” form, the
5 box for “Discharge Effective” was checked, with December 31, 2019 filled in as the date. Typed
6 into the “comments” box was: “Gross misconduct. Ineligible for rehire.” The form was signed
7 and dated by Human Resources representative Annelise Newman.
8 52. When Ms. Blackwell saw that Ms. Grandinetti was preparing to fire her, she
9 interrupted Ms. Grandinetti as she began to talk, saying that she no longer wanted to work at the
10 Chateau. Ms. Grandinetti responded that she thought that was best. Ms. Blackwell said it looked
11 like Ms. Grandinetti was getting ready to fire her, which Ms. Grandinetti confirmed.
12 53. Ms. Grandinetti then crossed out the words “Discharge Effective” on the form and
13 instead checked the box for “Voluntary Resignation Effective,” writing in the date. Ms.
14 Grandinetti also drew slashes through the typed comments that said, “Gross misconduct.
15 Ineligible for rehire.”
16 54. Ms. Grandinetti instructed Ms. Blackwell to write a resignation email on the spot,
17 which Ms. Blackwell drafted and sent from her phone while sitting in Ms. Grandinetti’s office.
18 55. During this meeting, Ms. Grandinetti mentioned that Ms. Blackwell had been
19 suspended since the incident with the guest. Ms. Blackwell was confused and told Ms.
20 Grandinetti that she had not been aware she was suspended—her manager, Dennis Severse, had
21 simply left her a voicemail telling her not to come into work because they wanted to “make sure
22 you were safe,” or words to that effect. Ms. Grandinetti told Ms. Blackwell that this had indeed
23 been a suspension.
24 56. Before this incident, Ms. Blackwell had never been disciplined in the course of her
25 employment at the Chateau.
26 57. Ms. Grandinetti said that they needed to terminate Ms. Blackwell because she
27 “wasn’t professional” in the interaction with the guest, or words to that effect. Ms. Blackwell
28
-11-
1 responded that it was very rare for her to grow agitated with a guest, but that it would have been
2 very difficult for any person to remain calm in that interaction.
3 58. Ms. Grandinetti responded by saying, “Adrian [Jules, a security guard,] has dealt
4 with quite a few people and he hasn’t gotten upset,” or words to that effect. Mr. Jules was one of
5 the few other African-American employees at the Chateau. Ms. Blackwell understood this
6 comment to mean that if Mr. Jules could withstand racial harassment from guests without
7 complaint like a “good” African-American employee, Ms. Blackwell was expected to do so as
8 well.
9 59. Ms. Blackwell suffered severe emotional distress as a result of her experience
10 working at the Chateau and the circumstances of her termination. She experienced ongoing
11 stress and anxiety, sleep disruptions, and weight gain. She developed acne for the first time in
12 her adult life. She had lower self-esteem, and lost her desire to socialize with friends. She had
13 recurring nightmares about the last guest incident. She continues to experience trauma to this
14 day when she thinks about her time at the Chateau and the circumstances of her termination.
15 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16 HARASSMENT (HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)
17 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(j)(1)
18 [Against all Defendants]
19 60. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained
20 in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
21 61. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer or any other
22 person “to harass an employee” on the basis of the employee’s sex or race. “An employer may …
23 be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to harassment of employees … if the
24 employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to
25 take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of
26 nonemployees, the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the
27
28
-12-
1 employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered. An
2 entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring.” Id.
3 62. “Once an employer is informed of the . . . harassment, the employer must take
4 adequate remedial measures. The measures need to include immediate corrective action that is
5 reasonably calculated to (1) end the current harassment and (2) to deter future harassment.” M.F.
6 v. Pac. Pearl Hotel Mgmt. LLC, 16 Cal. App. 5th 693, 701-02 (2017) (citation omitted).
7 63. At all times relevant to this claim, Defendant was Ms. Blackwell’s employer.
8 64. Ms. Blackwell was subject to verbal harassment and physical threat by guests of the
9 Defendant based on her sex and race, including being singled out for abusive treatment, and being
10 called a “bitch” and the N-word. These acts were unwelcome, and sufficiently severe and
11 pervasive to alter the conditions of Ms. Blackwell’s employment.
12 65. Ms. Blackwell consistently reported any harassment she experienced, via email
13 summaries as well as verbal complaints, to Chateau managers and Human Resources. These
14 individuals were all Ms. Blackwell’s supervisors within the meaning of Cal. Gov’t Code §
15 12926(t) (“‘Supervisor’ means any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer,
16 to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other
17 employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to
18 recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of
19 a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”). On the basis of
20 these reports, Defendant’s agents or supervisors knew or should have known about the guests’
21 harassing conduct.
22 66. Defendant failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. To the
23 contrary, Defendant encouraged an “anything goes” party atmosphere in which guests felt free to
24 behave however they wanted, without repercussion.
25 67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Ms. Blackwell
26 has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries. Ms. Blackwell has suffered and
27
28
-13-
1 continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Ms. Blackwell is thereby
2 entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
3 68. The conduct of Defendant as described herein was malicious, fraudulent, and
4 oppressive and/or done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and for the
5 deleterious consequences of their actions. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages
6 against Defendant.
7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(h)

12 70. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(h) makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or
13 otherwise retaliate against any employee because she has opposed practices made unlawful under
14 the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) such as harassment on the basis of sex or race.
16 72. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Blackwell by subjecting her to adverse
17 employment actions, including discipline, suspension and termination, because she opposed the
18 unlawful guest harassment she experienced at work on the basis of her race and sex.
20 has suffered and will continue to suffer both physical and emotional injuries. Ms. Blackwell has
21 suffered and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Ms. Blackwell is
22 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
27
28
-14-
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(a)
6 76. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a) makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or
7 otherwise discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of his employment
8 because of her race.

10 78. Defendant subjected Ms. Blackwell to adverse employment actions, including
11 discipline, suspension and termination, because she is Black.
13 has suffered and will continue to suffer both physical and emotional injuries. Ms. Blackwell has
14 suffered and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Ms. Blackwell is
15 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
22 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(k)
25 82. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(k) makes it unlawful for an employer to “fail to take all
26 reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” When a
27 plaintiff seeks to recover damages based on a claim of failure to prevent discrimination and/or
28
-15-
1 harassment, three essential elements must be shown: 1) plaintiff was subjected to discrimination
2 and/or harassment; 2) defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and/or
3 harassment; and 3) this failure caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss, or harm.
4 83. Defendant violated Gov’t Code § 12940(k) by failing to prevent the discrimination
5 and harassment that Ms. Blackwell suffered. Defendant was aware of the harassment to which Ms.
6 Blackwell was subjected on the basis of race and sex, and yet it did nothing to stop or prevent the
7 harassment from occurring. To the contrary, Defendant encouraged Ms. Blackwell to silently
8 endure racist and sexist guest abuse, and terminated her for refusing to do so.
10 has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries. Ms. Blackwell is thereby entitled to
11 general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
12 85. The conduct of Defendants as described herein was malicious, fraudulent, and
15 against Defendants.
16 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
21 87. In California, an employer has no right to terminate employment – even at-will
22 employment – for a reason that contravenes a fundamental public policy expressed in a
23 constitutional or statutory provision. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1252 (1994).
24 “An actual or constructive discharge in violation of fundamental public policy gives rise to a tort
25 action in favor of the terminated employee.” Id.
26 88. Here, Defendant’s termination of Ms. Blackwell violated the public policy
27 expressed in a number of statutory provisions, including: FEHA provisions that prohibit
28
-16-
1 discrimination, harassment and retaliation; Labor Code provisions, such as §§ 98.6, 1102.5 and
2 6310, that protect employees from retaliation for complaining about unlawful workplace conduct
3 and/or unsafe working conditions; the civil and criminal provisions of California law that prohibit
4 assault and threats of violence; and Cal. Penal Code § 422.55, et seq., California’s hate crimes law,
5 which prohibits threatening or harassing someone because of the person’s race or gender.
6 89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
7 suffered and will continue to suffer both physical and emotional injuries. Plaintiff has suffered and
8 continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to
14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § 1102.5
19 92. Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b) is “California’s general whistleblower statute.”
20 Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. App. 5th 384, 392 (2019). The statute makes it unlawful
21 for an employer, or anyone acting on behalf of the employer, to discharge or otherwise retaliate
22 against an employee for “disclosing information . . . to a person with authority over the employee
23 or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or
24 noncompliance . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a
25 violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal
26 rule or regulation.” Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b)
27
28
-17-
1 93. “To establish a violation, a plaintiff must make a prima facie case of retaliation. To
2 do that, plaintiff must show he engaged in protected activity, his employer subjected him to an
3 adverse employment action, and the existence of a causal link between the two.” Hawkins, 40 Cal.
4 App. 5th at 392-93.
6 95. Ms. Blackwell engaged in protected activity by making multiple reports to
7 management and Human Resources that the Chateau’s guests, many of whom were deeply
8 intoxicated, had behaved in an abusive, violent and threatening manner towards her and other hotel
9 staff, including by using racial epithets, slurs against women, and other hate speech. Through
10 these reports, Ms. Blackwell presented information to Chateau managers and Human Resources
11 employees that she reasonably believed disclosed a violation of the civil and criminal provisions of
12 California law that prohibit assault and threats of violence, such as Cal. Penal Code § 240, and Cal.
13 Penal Code § 422.55, et seq., California’s hate crimes law, which prohibits threatening or
14 assaulting a person because of the person’s race or gender.
15 96. After Ms. Blackwell made such disclosures, Defendant retaliated against her by
16 disciplining, suspending and ultimately terminating her.
25
26 //
27 //
28
-18-
1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR CODE § 6310
6 100. Cal. Labor Code § 6310 prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise
7 retaliating against employees for making any complaint to his employer about employee safety or
8 health.
10 102. Defendant discharged Ms. Blackwell and otherwise retaliated against her because
11 she made numerous reports to Chateau management about unsafe conditions in the workplace that
12 affected her safety or health, and the safety or health of other employees.
21 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 NEGLIGENCE
26 106. “Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law. Its existence
27 depends upon the foreseeability of the risk and a weighing of policy considerations for and against
28
-19-
1 imposition of liability.” Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1064, 1072 (1992) (emphasis in
2 original omitted).
3 107. Defendant owed a duty of care to Ms. Blackwell, their employee, because it was
4 foreseeable that hotel guests, particularly those who were inebriated and had a known history of
5 violent or abusive behavior, would harass and assault her while she was staffing the Chateau’s
6 front desk on Friday and Saturday nights. The foreseeability of this harm was increased because
7 the Chateau encouraged guests to become intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, served alcohol
8 between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. in violation of California law, encouraged an
9 “anything goes” party atmosphere, and Plaintiff and other employees had complained to Chateau
10 managers that they felt endangered by out-of-control guest conduct. The Chateau negligently
11 breached its duty of care to Ms. Blackwell by refusing to ban abusive guests, failing to take
12 sufficient steps to protect her safety while at work, and by responding with indifference to her
13 reports of abusive or threatening conduct by hotel guests.
14 108. Defendant is liable not only because it failed to prevent the harms to Ms. Blackwell
15 before they occurred, but also because it ratified and condoned abusive and threatening guest
16 conduct towards Ms. Blackwell after-the-fact by failing to take any remedial action, and
17 suspending and then discharging her after she complained.
26 //
27 //
28
-20-
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4 Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
5 1. For economic and special damages according to proof at trial;
6 2. For injunctive and declaratory relief;
7 3. For punitive damages and exemplary damages according to proof at trial;
8 4. For payment of all statutory obligations and penalties as required by law;

9 5. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate;
10 6. For attorneys’ fees and costs;
11 7. For restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten profits; and
12 8. For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
13
14 Dated: April 26, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

15 TEUKOLSKY LAW
16 A Professional Corporation
17 JEREMY J. BLASI
18 ZOE O. TUCKER
19
20 By:______________________________
Lauren Teukolsky
21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21-

Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Los Angeles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Los Angeles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Los Angeles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/26/2021 11:55 AM Sherri R.

Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk

1 LAUREN TEUKOLSKY (SBN 211381)

12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

25 7. Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Cal.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3 belief alleges as follows:

7 jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.

12 California, within the County of Los Angeles.

20 Chateau Marmont: Where a “Drug-Fueled Culture” Meets Racial Hierarchy

2 Belushi’s fatal overdose in a Chateau bungalow in 1982 2 to Heath Ledger’s participation in a

3 paparazzi-staged “cocaine party” in 2006. 3

12 7. As part of its party atmosphere and celebrity-oriented image, the Chateau

2 maintain the “look” on which the Chateau’s glamorous brand depended.

22 called her the N-word.

2 way during her tenure at the Chateau.

23 guest was close with either Mr. Balazs or Mr. Pavel.

3 Angeles and to her position at Chateau in or around June 2018.

6 Amanda Grandinetti had taken over from Pavel as Managing Director.

23 especially hurtful to Ms. Blackwell.

26 them in such a condescending tone.

21 come to the front desk.

24 situation via the security cameras.

2 let him into his room.

23 me like that,” or words to that effect.

26 “What are we, in the ghetto?”

19 to address the situation.

2 be present only as a witness to the conversation.

7 and dated by Human Resources representative Annelise Newman.

25 employment at the Chateau.

2 very difficult for any person to remain calm in that interaction.

7 complaint like a “good” African-American employee, Ms. Blackwell was expected to do so as

16 HARASSMENT (HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

17 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(j)(1)

18 [Against all Defendants]

20 in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

24 behave however they wanted, without repercussion.

2 entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

5 deleterious consequences of their actions. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages

7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

8 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(h)

22 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

25 deleterious consequences of their actions. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages

2 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(a)

3 [Against all Defendants]

5 in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

8 because of her race.

20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT

22 IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV’T CODE § 12940(k)

24 in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

17 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

18 [Against all Defendants]

20 in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

21 87. In California, an employer has no right to terminate employment – even at-will

22 employment – for a reason that contravenes a fundamental public policy expressed in a

25 action in favor of the terminated employee.” Id.