A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit claiming spa and salon workers were subjected to age discrimination at Phil Ruffin’s Treasure Island hotel-casino in Las Vegas.
Six women, ranging in age from 47 to 60 and all longtime employees of the TI, filed their age discrimination lawsuit in 2010.
They complained in the suit that after Ruffin purchased the property in March 2009 from MGM Resorts International, a new spa and salon manager was installed and Ruffin’s wife, former Miss Ukraine Oleksandra Nikolayenko-Ruffin, told the spa manager that she “wants young beautiful girls here.”
The new manager, a witness said, also was heard to say that “we’re getting rid of the old crew and starting over fresh with a new crew.”
The spa and salon, renamed Oleksandra Spa & Salon, then required every beauty professional to reapply for their job and pass an audition to win their job back.
The women who filed suit claimed they either were not allowed to audition, failed it or passed it but were later fired because of their age.
U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt, in an order signed Monday, examined the claims of each woman and found that Treasure Island had nondiscriminatory reasons not to rehire them or to fire them.
In the case of woman No. 1, she was hired in 1993 as a guestroom attendant and joined the spa as a receptionist in 1996. She held that job until she was fired in June 2009 at age 47.
Hunt wrote in his ruling that she was replaced by substantially younger employees with equal or inferior qualifications.
But Treasure Island had a legitimate reason to fire her because of a history of poor work performance including being rude and unprofessional toward guests and committing errors in scheduling appointments, resulting in lost revenue for Treasure Island.
Woman No. 2 was hired in 2000 as a manicurist and held that post until she was fired in May 2009 at age 60.
The woman said the fact she was employed nine years showed management felt her job performance was satisfactory, but Hunt said Treasure Island produced evidence she had a history of unsanitary and substandard work performance.
Woman No. 3 was hired as a hairstylist in 1998 and held that position until her firing in 2009 at age 56.
The next four stylists hired after her were more than 10 years younger than woman No. 3, but Hunt found there was no age discrimination because Treasure Island produced evidence that she had made negative comments about management in front of co-workers and guests.
For instance, a witness heard her say of Nikolayenko-Ruffin, “I bet it’s going to be beautiful spending her husband’s money.”
Woman No. 4 was hired as a manicurist in 1997 and held that position until her firing in 2009 at age 59.
The manicurists hired after her were all more than 10 years younger, but Hunt found her firing was legitimate because she failed her audition.
“She could not perform a full set of acrylic nails, something that she would be required to do regularly,” his ruling said, adding she was nervous and displayed poor customer service skills during the audition.
Woman No. 5 was hired as an aesthetician in 1993 and held that job until her 2009 firing at age 49.
Hunt found Treasure Island showed she had a poor attitude and was negative and hostile toward management.
And Woman No. 6 was hired in 2004 as a receptionist and later became an aesthetician, a job she held until her 2009 discharge at age 56.
Hunt noted in his order that Treasure Island showed she had a poor attitude and hostility toward management.
As to the comments about the spa needing “young beautiful girls” and management was “getting rid of the old crew,” Hunt wrote in his order dismissing the lawsuit that “these and other similar statements are insufficient to create a fact question that plaintiffs were discharged because of their age. The court has no way of knowing the context, subject matter and demeanor of these statements.”
Hunt dismissed the lawsuit on a summary judgment basis, meaning the case didn’t advance to the trial stage as Hunt felt enough evidence had been gathered for him to rule on whether the case could continue.
The six women suing Treasure Island were represented by Las Vegas attorney Michael Balaban.
"The case will likely be appealed and if this occurs I am confident that the District Court's order will be overturned and ultimately a Nevada jury will be able to decide whether age discrimination occurred in this case," Balaban said Tuesday.
Treasure Island was represented by the Las Vegas office of the law firm Littler Mendelson.