Las Vegas — In a significant legal move, Wynn Las Vegas is seeking a substantial reduction in the damages awarded to a former cocktail server by challenging the jury’s decision in a recent U.S. District Court trial in Nevada. The case involves allegations that the company wrongfully interfered with the server’s rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The high-profile resort company, on a recent Tuesday, requested that the federal court not only decrease the jury award from the original $321,200 to just $10,927.77, but also impose sanctions on the plaintiff Tiare Ramirez’s legal representatives, based in Henderson, alleging that they failed to transparently reveal their method for calculating lost benefits.
Wynn’s legal team argued in court filings that the jury’s decision featured significant errors in both the mathematical and legal interpretation regarding the damages entitled under FMLA. They described the error as so grave that sustaining the award without reduction, known as remittitur, would constitute a “manifest injustice.”
The legal battle began when Ramirez, who was hired by Wynn as one of its original cocktail servers in November 2008, was dismissed in November 2017. Subsequently, she took legal action against the company in 2019, alleging inappropriate handling of her FMLA rights. Following a five-day trial which concluded on October 25, the jury sided with Ramirez, compensating her for lost wages and awarding damages for emotional distress among others, while rejecting her claims concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In reaction to Wynn Las Vegas’s post-verdict motions, Ramirez’s attorney, Christian Gabroy, defended the integrity of the jury’s decision during a Wednesday interview. He expressed disappointment in Wynn’s strategies, accusing the company of retaliating rather than complying with the jury’s unanimous decision.
Gabroy emphasized that the damages awarded were clearly outlined during the trial and expressed frustration over the resort’s refusal to accept the jury’s decision. He characterized Wynn’s legal maneuvers as an unwarranted attack on him personally and on the fairness of the judicial process.
This legal tussle paints a larger picture of the often complex interactions between corporate policies and employee rights, especially concerning federally mandated leave rights. The outcome of this motion and potential reduction in the award could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the hospitality industry, particularly in situations involving large employers like Wynn Las Vegas.
This article was generated by OpenAI. Please note that the information, people, facts, and circumstances discussed may be inaccurate. Any inaccuracies in this article can be reported, and requests for removal, retraction, or correction can be made by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.