The District Court for the NMI has granted Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC’s motion to dismiss the discrimination suit filed by a group of the casino investor’s former workers.
District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted last week IPI’s request to dismiss the lawsuit filed by a group of its former workers that are accusing IPI of paying them significantly less than other workers because of their race. They claim they were in the same class and shared the same skills and experiences as these other workers.
“The court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave for plaintiffs to amend the complaint, including to amend class definition. Court further grants plaintiff’s request for enlargement of time. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is due Monday, June 27, 2022,” the court stated.
Manglona said she will issue an order on her decision soon.
Back in March, IPI pro hac vice counsel Daniel Weiner filed the motion to dismiss, claiming that the plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim for relief.
The plaintiffs—Özcan Genç, Hasan Gökçe, and Süleyman Köş—are former IPI employees hired to work on the construction of the Imperial Palace Casino and Hotel Resort in Garapan.
They claimed that the casino investor engaged in a company-wide practice of employment discrimination, both intentional and systemic, on the basis of national origin, against them and others by paying them less than the Taiwanese employees.
However, Weiner claims that that plaintiffs’ complaint lacks any factual allegations to support their claim and the court should dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
According to court documents, IPI’s alleged discriminatory conduct resulted in the plaintiffs and other members of the class suffering damages, including but not limited to, reduced wages.
The plaintiffs claim that while they were employed to work on the Imperial Palace casino/hotel resort in Garapan, IPI also hired other construction workers, including Taiwanese construction workers, who also performed the same types of work that the plaintiff did and shared the same skills, qualifications, and experience. However, the Taiwanese workers were paid a higher rate.