Here is where you upload your practice brief for theSherman v Marriottcase.

You can find theShermancase in Chapter 3 of our Hospitality Law book. You need to watch/listento the "How to Brief a Case" Panopto recording before attempting to brief this case.

FORMAT: I am generally open to any format with one exception: DONOTWRITE your briefs in paragraph format. This is not a paper or an essay. When you write your case brief like a paper, you end up "burying" the brief requirements within each paragraphs and I end searching out for each element of the brief.

IMPORTANT, quick side note about the Panoptorecordings: I prerecorded my Panopto videos a while back with the intention of each video remaining evergreen; however, it is possible I reference something that may not apply to our course. Try not to worry because I think you will know it does not apply.

If you hear something and are confused, please reach out and I will clarify anything! The scheduling of our course may be a bit different than the course I was teaching when I recorded the videos. You might hear something about an assignment that is due or something that is starting in a couple of weeks, please disregard all of it...you don't need to keep track of when we start any topic because you will see everything in our modules.

I apologize in advance for any confusion--just remember, I do NOT assign anything for our current course NOR make any changes to our current schedule in any Panopto recording--so if you ever hear anything about an assignment, disregard it or reach out and I can clarify!

Finally, there is one additional Panopto, "Lifeline of a Lawsuit" I want you to watch too. Be sure to watch it this week; however, it's not required to watch before submitting your practice brief forSherman v Marriott.

In case you don't have the book yet, and by the way, that will cause a lot of challenges--so get the book ASAP--here is a copy of theSherman v Marriottcase.

Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

317 F.Supp.2d 609 (Md., 2004)

The Plaintiff, Marcus Sherman, who is African-American, was locked out of his room at a Baltimore hotel while attending a professional conference in March 2003 when his room key became demagnetized. Unhappy with the treatment he received from hotel employees in obtaining a new key (and in later complaining about it, he filed this action for damages and injunctive relief ... pursuant to ..... the Civil Rights Act of 1964... .

(The facts are as follows ... Plaintiff attended a professional conference at the hotel from on or about March 5 through March 7, 2003. On the evening of March 5, plaintiff worked out in the hotel gym until after 11:00 p.m. When he returned to his room from the gym, his electronic key card had become demagnetized and would not unlock the door. Plaintiff, dressed in athletic garb and sweating from his workout, went to the front desk to obtain assistance and/or a new key. At the front desk, plaintiff interacted with a white employee, Darren

It is undisputed that defendant's lock-out policy requires that a guest display identification matching the name in hotel records in order to obtain a new key. Under circumstances such as those facing plaintiff on March 5, in which the guest's identification is in his (locked) room, the policy requires that the guest be escorted to the room by hotel security to obtain the identification.

According to plaintiff, the interaction between plaintiff and Kerr at the front desk was not pleasant. Plaintiff, who alleges that it took up to 19 minutes or so for Kerr to obtain assistance from a security officer to escort plaintiff to his room, regards certain statements of Kerr ("You could have come in off the street... .) to have manifested a racially insensitive, if not racially discriminatory, attitude. In any event, an African-American security officer eventually escorted plaintiff to his room. Kerr had apparently instructed plaintiff to return to the front desk after he had produced identification to the security officer to retrieve a replacement key; however, the security officer left plaintiff in his room and returned alone to the front desk to retrieve a new key for plaintiff.

The replacement key was delivered to plaintiff's room.

Apparently, plaintiff's decision to sue for damages based on the March 5 incident was made as a result of what he learned the next night during dinner with some of his professional colleagues.

Specifically, plaintiff learned that a white female professional acquaintance had checked into the hotel the day before plaintiff checked in, i.e., on March 4, 2003. Later on March 4, that colleague had locked herself out of her room. When she went to the front desk for assistance, the same front desk employee who had checked her in immediately reissued an additional key to her, without demanding identification, and in violation of the hotel's written lock-out policy...

As a matter of law, plaintiff enjoyed the benefits and privileges, on the very same terms and conditions, of the contractual relationship offered by the defendant to any prospective guest. As a matter of law, the fact that an individual employee of the hotel deviated from the undisputed policy of the hotel in respect to lock-outs (by reissuing a key to a guest who had recently checked in and who was recognized by the employee) is not remotely probative of a claim of race discrimination based on proof that such an exception or deviation from the

(continued)

16 Robertson v. Burger King, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 78 (La. 1994); See also Jackson v. Waffle House, Inc., 413

F.Supp. 2d. 1338 (Ga. 2006)

17 Callmood v. Dave E Buster's, Inc., 98 F. Supp. 2d 694 (Md. 2000)

policy was not made (by a different hotel employee) conclusion is not remotely called into question by when plaintiff was locked out of his room. However undisputed proof that on some occasions, whether unpleasant plaintilt's interactions with hotel staff on pursuant to an unofficial or informal "policy he night of his lock-out might have been, ... no

easonable juror properly instructed on the law deviations from the policy by individual emplovees could reasonably conclude that application of a which common sense suggests are virtually certain facially neutral lock-out policy, which requires that a to occur, some guests are provided replacement guest be escorted to his room for identification, as keys without displaying identification. Accordingly, applied to plaintiff on March 5, 2003, constituted an act of racial discrimination ... Moreover, this

CASE QUESTIONS

1. What facts did the Court consider to be most important in reaching its determination that the plaintiff was not discriminated against based upon his race?