Case Overview: Tiare Ramirez vs. Wynn Las Vegas
In a notable legal battle that highlights the complexities of employment law, Tiare Ramirez, a former cocktail waitress at Wynn Las Vegas, has made headlines after her lawsuit against the casino giant for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The case has drawn attention not only for its implications on employee rights but also for the judicial system’s role in assessing jury awards.
Background of the Case
The conflict began in 2017 when Ramirez attended a gender reveal party before her scheduled shift and subsequently called in to request FMLA leave due to medical issues. According to Ramirez, she experienced flare-ups from ankle problems exacerbated by high heels, prompting her need for time off. However, her employer launched an investigation into her FMLA usage, which culminated in her termination on November 2, 2017, for alleged misconduct related to the leave.
In 2019, Ramirez filed a lawsuit against Wynn Las Vegas, claiming that her rights under the FMLA had been violated. After a trial that concluded on October 25, 2024, a jury awarded her $321,200 for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages. However, this award was deemed excessive by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Gordon, who ordered a new trial on damages.
The Reduced Award
Faced with the possibility of a new trial, Ramirez opted to accept a significantly reduced payment of $27,200.75. This sum included $20,477.84 in damages and $6,722.91 in prejudgment interest. Although she chose this path to avoid the uncertainties of a new trial, Ramirez reserved the right to appeal the judge’s decision regarding the jury award.
Judge Gordon’s ruling underscored the necessity of providing substantiation for damage claims in employment law cases. While the jury found that Wynn violated Ramirez’s FMLA rights, they did not find a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which further complicated the legal landscape for Ramirez’s claims.
Implications of the Ruling
This case serves as a critical reminder of the challenges employees may face in proving wrongful termination and FMLA violations. It highlights the delicate balance between employee rights and employer responsibilities, especially in the fast-paced environment of the hospitality industry. The ruling also reflects the judicial system’s power to review and adjust jury awards that may be perceived as excessive, emphasizing the need for clear and substantiated claims in such matters.
Moreover, this case could set a precedent for future FMLA-related disputes, particularly regarding how damages are calculated and awarded. As the hospitality industry continues to evolve, the implications of this ruling may resonate with both current and future employees navigating their rights under medical leave policies.
Wynn Resorts’ Response
While representatives from Wynn Resorts have refrained from commenting on the case or the ruling, this situation adds to the ongoing discourse about employee rights within the Las Vegas Strip casino environment. The scrutiny surrounding Wynn’s employment practices, particularly in handling FMLA claims, may impact its public image and employee relations moving forward.
In conclusion, the legal saga between Tiare Ramirez and Wynn Las Vegas not only highlights individual employee struggles against larger corporate entities but also illuminates broader themes in employment law, including the significance of substantiating claims and the judicial system’s role in ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved. As this case unfolds, it will undoubtedly remain a touchstone for discussions surrounding workplace rights and legal responsibilities.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
TIARE RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff
v.
WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC,
Defendant
Case No.: 2:19-cv-01174-APG-EJY
Order on Post-Trial Motions
[ECF Nos. 174, 175, 179, 183, 188, 189, 190]
A jury awarded plaintiff Tiare Ramirez $321,200 in lost wages and benefits on her claim of Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference against defendant Wynn Las Vegas, LLC. The jury did not find Wynn liable on Ramirez’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination claim and I granted Wynn’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on her negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims.
Both parties now bring various post-trial motions. Wynn moves for remittitur or a new trial on damages, moves for Rule 37 sanctions against Ramirez’s counsel, renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the FMLA claim, and submits a bill of costs. Ramirez moves for a new trial on her ADA discrimination claim and on her negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims. She also moves for equitable relief, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
The parties are familiar with the facts, so I repeat them here only as necessary to decide the motions. For the reasons described below, I grant Wynn’s motion for remittitur or new trial. I also grant in part Ramirez’s motions for statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. I deny the other motions.
Ramirez v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC Doc. 213
Dockets.Justia.com
