THE federal court has denied a motion to dismiss with prejudice the discrimination lawsuit filed against Imperial Pacific International LLC by its former workers, who are from Turkey.
Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI said the plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to plausibly show that the island’s exclusive licensed casino operator discriminated against them and 107 other Turkish H-2B workers.
The employment discrimination lawsuit also named IPI’s parent company as a defendant, Imperial Pacific Holdings Ltd. or IPH, and is asking for an unspecified amount in damages.
The plaintiffs, Özcan Genç, Hasan Gökçe, and Süleyman Köş, through attorney Richard Miller, alleged that IPI engaged in a company-wide practice of employment discrimination, both intentional and systemic, based on national origin, against the plaintiffs and similarly situated Turkish employees/former employees.
According to the complaint, Özcan Genc started working for IPI in January 2020. He was a foreman and the leader of the welding and drywall team. Genc’s title on IPI’s certificate of employment was construction carpenter, and his salary was $21,840 a year.
Hasan Gökçe started working for IPI in January 2020. He was a plumber and a master of pipe installation, and a plumbing foreman. Gökçe’s title on IPI’s certificate of employment was plumber, and his salary was stated therein as $21,840 a year.
Süleyman Köş started working for IPI in January 2020. He was an electrician and was promoted to electrical foreman in June 2020. Köş’s title on IPI’s certificate of employment was electrician, and his salary was $17,368 a year. However, since his promotion to foreman, his base wage rate increased to $10.50 an hour, which annualized to a full-time salary of $21,840, Miller said.
In December 2020, the three plaintiffs filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On Oct. 25, 2021, the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue on that charge.
IPI terminated their employment on or about December 2020, their lawsuit stated.
During the same period when IPI was employing plaintiffs to work on the Imperial Palace casino/hotel resort, IPI also employed other construction workers, including Taiwanese workers, the complaint stated.
All those Taiwanese workers were, like the plaintiffs and members of the class, employed by IPI under the H-2B visa program.
IPI employed those Taiwanese workers to perform the same types of work that the plaintiffs and members of the class performed.
With respect to the types of work they performed, those Taiwanese workers had the same or similar level of skills, qualifications, and experience as the plaintiffs and members of the class, the lawsuit stated.
However, the Taiwanese workers were paid by IPI at a wage rate significantly higher — in some instances, nearly two times higher — than the plaintiffs and members of the class, the lawsuit stated.
“IPI and IPIH’s upper-level management, meaning those persons who were actually in control of IPI’s policies and management-level decision-making, intentionally discriminated against employees with Turkish national origin (and employees of any other non-Taiwanese national origin),” the lawsuit added.
Moreover, the lawsuit stated that IPI and IPIH never had a system for setting wage rates for construction workers based on objective criteria.
It further alleged that the “person(s) within IPI and IPIH’s upper-level management that made the management-level decision-making as to wage rates to be paid to IPI’s construction workers, including without limitation, plaintiffs and members of the class and the Taiwanese workers, were either themselves of Taiwanese origin or were related to or in a relationship with persons of Taiwanese origin, and intentionally and without any legitimate reason, set higher wage rates for Taiwanese workers than for workers of other national origins.”
As a result of IPI’s discriminatory conduct, the lawsuit stated, the plaintiffs and members of the class have suffered damages, including without limitation, reduced wages.
In her 18-page order, Judge Manglona said the plaintiffs alleged a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination.
The differences that IPI cited are immaterial, she added.
She said the second amended complaint alleged plausible facts to show that each named plaintiff was discriminated against.
The judge also finds that U.S. Department of Labor statistics anecdotally supported the claim of Title VII discrimination.
“The facts alleging systemic discrimination also support the claim of discrimination,” she added.
