A federal civil rights case was filed against Marriott (Turner v. Marriott International, Inc. et al. No. 3:26-cv-00096) on Wednesday in the Southern District of Ohio.
LeRon “Rocky” Turner, a Black Dayton resident and Marriott Bonvoy member, booked a room at the TownePlace Suites by Marriott Dayton Beavercreek which just opened this past fall after HVAC trouble left him without working heat on Super Bowl Sunday.
He says he booked a room with two beds and a small kitchen for his partner and two children, for four days. The dual-branded 160-room TownPlace Suites-Fairfield Inn refused the reservation, and he says they told him “You people” and “Dayton people like you” smoke weed, do drugs, and drink heavily, and made clear to him that Black people from Dayton were not allowed to stay there. The owner allegedly called police, who asked him to leave. He was stuck getting a smaller, more expensive room at another property.
A few things I found notable about the complaint.
- Reporting suggests that he had already checked in and then returned with food before being told his reservation was canceled. However the complaint filed says he bought food after reserving and was notified of cancellation as he arrived at the property to check-in. That seems to be what occurred.
- Earlier viral coverage of the incident described a Courtyard property in Worthington, rather than the TownePlace in Beavercreek listed in the complaint.
- The lawsuit is worse for the hotel than the original viral video. It sounded initially like the hotel doesn’t rent to people from Dayton because someone from Dayton smoked weed there before.
However, the lawsuit adds explicit “you people” language about a black guest, as well as police being called. Reporting also suggests that hotel staff had confirmed that it wasn’t a problem for locals to stay there, suggesting that the issue was who these particular locals were.
The hotel is independently owned, but carries the Marriott flag. The reservation was made through Marriott, and the guest trusted the brand – highlighitng how little of what happens on property actually has to do with the chain itself. Marriott promotes these hotels as ‘theirs’ and owners call themselves a Marriott but if this gets to court they’ll certainly point fingers as say this was just an independent owner, not us.
If the facts are as alleged, there’s a strong case for race discrimination in a public accommodations under both Ohio statute and fedeal law.
The hotel will deny the ‘you people’ claim and argue they were enforce a race neutral no-locals rule.
No-locals rules can be legal if they’re applied evenly, but they can also be using geography as a proxy for race or other characteristics.
Regardless, it seems to me that if a confirmed guest is turned away, the brand should be on the hook for re-accommodation.
Keynote Speaker at the next RNC confirmed
The three rules of traveling:
1) Don’t Fly Frontier
2) Don’t Rent from Hertz
3) Don’t stay at Marriott properties
Follow those rules, and you will have a much better chance of making it home satisfied.
Well that’s highly incontinent. (‘Bon-void!’)
@L737 — Bah, now I’m pissed!
In a free society, this would simply be a moral issue and legality wouldn’t even be an afterthought. As it should be.
I’ve never heard of a “no-locals” rule? Is there really such a thing? How could that possibly be legal (or ethical)?
I’ve lived in the area for a few years. Dayton isn’t Beavercreek.
So it’s less of a no local rule than a rule against people from Dayton, who are on average less well off than Beavercreek.
Definitely discrimination at play here.
@Mike P In a “free society” everyone who wants to discriminate should do so on their own dime. That means, they get no tax funded support from the government, which gets tax dollars from everyone in society which is then used to provide everyone with services. For example, the roadway leading up to the hotel is paid for with tax payer dollars. Why should the “customer” who is turned away at the hotel which is benefitting from the customer’s taxpayer dollars be allowed to not provide him services on the basis of his skin color? Similarly, should a physician be allowed to not provide services to a person who is ill because that person is a man, and the physician is a woman? Etc. Etc.