Oneida Casino Hotel, September 30, 2024. PC: Fox 11 Online
ASHWAUBENON, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) – Two people banned from a hotel and restaurant after employees reported they made comments about the skin color of other patrons lost an appeal Tuesday seeking to revive a lawsuit claiming they were defamed and suffered emotional distress by the ban.
According to the appeals court decision, Robert Burrows, Jr., and Roberta Kreuser were “long-time” patrons of a restaurant at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, now known as the Oneida Casino Hotel.
On May 22, 2022, the restaurant was busy and they had to wait for a table.
According to their usual server, Sabrina Nash, “Kreuser ‘seemed kind of upset’ and asked, ‘Are you going to seat the colored people before us?’ Nash informed her manager, Carol Kedzoir, of the incident because she was upset by the comment and did not think she could continue to wait on the Burrows. Nash eventually submitted a written statement to management about the incident.”
A week later, they returned. This time, they were served by Saya Alam Ansari.
“Kreuser requested a box at the end of the meal to take some pastries from the buffet home, but Ansari informed her that the restaurant did not permit to-go boxes for the buffet. Ansari testified that Kreuser complained that the restaurant gave boxes to ‘all these black people’ but not to her. Ansari informed Kedzoir about Kreuser’s comments and subsequently submitted a written statement to management about the incident,” the lawsuit summary states.
On June 9, the hotel issued the two a letter informing them they were banned from all hotel facilities.
“Based on the information received, it has been determined that this type of activity/conduct jeopardizes the reputation of the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center Green Bay. Therefore consider this as notice that you are banned from all Radisson Hotel facilities AND parking lots effective immediately. Failure to comply with this order may result in criminal trespassing charges,” the letter states.
The Burrows filed suit against the general manager and hotel operating company, Aimbridge.
“The Burrows alleged that the June 9 “letter’s characterization of Burrows[’] and Kreuser’s conduct is false and defamatory because at no time did they engage in behavior that would warrant a ban or jeopardize the hotel’s reputation.” The Burrows further alleged that this false and defamatory information had been shared with third parties. The complaint set forth claims for libel, slander, and defamation; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and punitive damages,” the suit states.
A circuit court ruled in Aimbridge’s favor, dismissing the case.
“In a written decision following a hearing, the circuit court granted summary judgment to Aimbridge on the claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court determined that it did not need to address the Burrows’ request for punitive damages in the absence of an underlying claim,” the summary states.
The Burrows then appealed, contending the circuit court was mistaken in granting summary judgment for the defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
In a 15-page decision issued Tuesday, the state appeals court rejected their arguments, and confirmed the circuit court’s ruling.
The circuit court ruled that the restaurant sharing the information with other, related corporate entities – including the Oneida Airport Hotel Corporation and the casino – did not constitute sharing the information with a third party, which is a required prong for such lawsuits. The appeals court upheld that ruling.
Also, “because the Burrows deny making the bigoted comments that Nash and Ansari reported to Ninham, the Burrows contend that there is a genuine issue of fact regarding whether these reports were false,” the ruling states.
But the decision rejects this, too.
The Burrows do not identify any discrepancies between the information that was verbally reported to Ninham and the information contained in the written statements, much less any discrepancy that would indicate to Ninham that the verbal reports from Nash and Ansari were false. In the absence of any basis for concluding that Ninham knowingly or recklessly disregarded the truth by issuing the June 9 letter prior to receiving the written statements from Nash and Ansari, the Burrows have failed to create a genuine issue of fact,” the ruling states.
The emotional distress argument was also rejected, noting there was no evidence of intent to cause that.
We agree with the circuit court that the Burrows’ argument about Aimbridge’s motives is entirely speculative and therefore insufficient to create a genuine issue regarding the stated purpose of the June 9 letter. In particular, the Burrows have presented no evidence tending to show that Ninham or Aimbridge was motivated by any purpose other than to protect the business’s reputation,” the ruling states. “Because we agree with the circuit court that the Burrows failed to create a genuine issue regarding the first element of their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, we conclude that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to Aimbridge.
The decision could be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Comments