Case Study: RIVERA V. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino

1. Who were the parties to the lawsuit? How were they related?
The parties in this lawsuit were: Artemio Rivera, Albert Karwowski, (plaintiffs) and Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, A New Jersey Corporation (defendant) (RIVERA V. TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL CASINO). Both plaintiffs, Artemio and Albert were employees of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino.
RIVERA v. TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL CASINO, 305 N.J. Super. 596, 599 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1997)

2. What was the nature of the issue in the suit?
Both plaintiffs have been employed by Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino for a number of years and have worn a ponytail as a hair style since that time. In 1994 the hotel revised its appearance and grooming policy and it would be implemented on the first day of the upcoming year. Both

plaintiffs were aware of the new policy and even discussed the new policy with Barry Cragan, Trump Plaza's Chief Operating Officer.

On December 29, 1994, the manger issued a memorandum to all the employees informing them that the upcoming appearance and grooming policy would come along with a disciplinary action policy, both to take effect on January 1, 1995. “Effective January 1, if an employee reports to work in violation of ANY of the appearance standards, he/she will be issued a Record of Discussion and will be allowed to complete their shift. If he/she returns to work on their next shift still in violation, he/she will be issued a Written Warning and allowed to complete their shift. If he/she returns on the next shift and has still failed to comply, they will be given a Final Written Warning and suspended for the next three (3) working days and sent home, without pay. If, at the completion of the Suspension, the employee has still failed to comply, they will be terminated.” Artemio Rivera and Albert Karwowski both went through each step of the disciplinary action for not complying with the appearance and grooming policy and were fired.

“The plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Trump Plaza alleging sex discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq. (First and Second Counts), improper discharge (Third and Fourth Counts), and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Fifth and Sixth Counts)”. The case was dismissed upon a request of the defendant with the judge taking notice that a ponytail was not at traditional hairstyle for a man. The plaintiffs appealed by the court decision was affirmed.
RIVERA v.

TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL CASINO, 305 N.J. Super. 596, 599 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1997)
Was it identical to the issue you chose in Week 1? If not, how is it related and relevant?
This case is identical to the issue that I selected for week one, a controversial employment law issue, which was hairstyle based discrimination within the workplace.
3. How was the issue decided and why?
The Court affirmed the original decision by the summary judgment in favor of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino. For the reason that the plaintiffs were unable to show that they were victimized by the Trump Plaza in reference to, the discrimination against majority nor discrimination in a pattern of sex that favored women over men.
RIVERA v. TRUMP PLAZA HOTEL CASINO, 305 N.J. Super. 596, 599 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1997)
4. What precedent (if any) did the case set for future litigation?
There was no precedent in this case, there has been other cases where the court was in favor of the company that fired someone because of hairstyle in accordance with its employee policy.
5. Did the case leave any questions unanswered with respect to the issue at

hand?
This case left no questions unanswered.