Hilton Claims Los Angeles ‘Teamed With’|A Union To Force Wage Increase

LOS ANGELES (CN) - The Los Angeles Airport Hilton Hotel and Towers claims the City of Los Angeles has illegally "teamed with a certain local union" to force the hotel to increase pay for its workers, even though they get tips. The city enacted the Airport Hospitality Enhancement Zone Ordinance on June 4, to take effect July 5.

"The ordinance interferes with the rights of petitioner and other hotel operators under state and federal law by improperly dictating the rules of employment for a select group of hotel owners located near Los Angeles International Airport," the Hilton claims in Superior Court. "Specifically, the ordinance requires specific hotel owners located near LAX ... to pay their workers no less than the specified wages if the hotel is located within a defined 'Zone.' Because the designated wages in the ordinance exempt gratuities and tips of the 'Hotel Worker,' petitioner would currently have to increase the wages of approximately 12% of its workforce, despite the fact that these workers typically make in excess of the designated wages when tips and gratuities are counted. ...

"At its core, the ordinance is an effort by the city to select a small number of private employers and force them to pay higher wages in an industry that continues to experience contentious and protracted disputes with the local union over unionization of the hotels located near LAX. ...

(D)espite the city's asserted goal of wanting to create an improved 'Airport Hospitality Enhancement Zone' located adjacent to LAX, in truth the city has teamed with a certain local union and attempted to dictate the terms of employment to a select group of hotel owners."

Hilton claims the city is interfering with its business, singling it out for disparate treatment by excluding restaurants and hotels with fewer than 50 rooms from the ordinance, and enacting an illegal, "retroactive law."

"The true motivation of the city is both readily apparent and is unlawful," Hilton says.

It claims the ordinance is unconstitutional, and demands an injunction. It is represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit