EEOC objects to $18K sought by hotel

The owners of Saipan Grand Hotel are seeking an award of $18,824.21 for the costs they incurred to defend themselves against the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a band singer.

EEOC objects, however, and has asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to deny the request of award. In the alternative, EEOC asked the court to reduce the requested award to only $4,697.64.

Attorney Steven P. Pixley, counsel for Asia Pacific Hotels Inc. and Tan Holdings Corp., pointed out that there is no dispute that his clients were the prevailing parties in the civil lawsuit. On Dec. 200, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Asia Pacific and Tan Holdings.

“The defendants submit that the award of costs is appropriate in this civil action,” Pixley said.

The lawyer cited Rule 54 (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that provides for an award of costs in favor of the prevailing party.

Pixley requested a total award of $18,824.21 for costs of copying/printing documents, rough draft of trial transcripts, deposition expenses, expert witness fee, attorney travel and lodging expenses, and process service fee.

In EEOC’s objection, trial attorney Derek W. Li said to award the substantial costs requested would have a “chilling effect” on future civil rights litigants in Saipan.

Li said the court or the clerk should exercise its discretion to deny the request for costs due to the special circumstances of the case. As an alternative, Li said the court or the clerk should exercise its discretion to substantially reduce the costs.

In the case, EEOC had alleged that Asia Pacific Hotels Inc. and Tan Holdings Inc. allowed a band singer to be subjected to sexual harassment that was severe enough to create a hostile, abusive work environment.

EEOC alleged that Tomas Alegre, the then hotel’s restaurant manager, subjected the singer to unwelcome touching of a sexual nature in her hotel room in the early morning of Jan. 2, 2008.

In his deposition, Alegre, who is now based in the Philippines, said that he had a consensual relationship with the singer. Alegre disclosed, among other things, that the singer, who was drunk at the time, invited him to her room.

The jurors later sided with the defense, saying that EEOC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence its claims that defendants subjected the signer to a sexually abusive or hostile work environment.