Masseuse files discrimination suit vs ex-employer

A massage therapist sued her former employer and supervisors yesterday in federal court for not renewing her contract after she allegedly filed a discrimination complaint against them for exposing her to cigarette smoke when she was pregnant.

Arlene F. Ladringan is suing Mirage Corp., its president Suichi Kondo, manager Lili Kondo, supervisor Ishei Lei, and 10 unnamed co-defendants, for unlawful employment practices, retaliation, employment practice in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Ladringan, through counsel George Lloyd Hasselback, asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to be reinstated to the same position and to hold the defendants liable to pay her back pay, damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees.

Saipan Tribune tried yesterday to get comments from the defendants, but a Mirage Massage staff said Suichi Kondo and Lili Kondo are currently in Japan. Lei said she is not aware of the lawsuit and that she would inform her boss about it.

Hasselback stated in the complaint that plaintiff started working for Mirage in September 2011 as a massage therapist, providing massages to Mirage’s customers at several of its business locations on Saipan.

Hasselback said that Mirage allowed its customers to smoke inside one or more of its branches.

The lawyer said there were no measures taken to designate an enclosed area as a “smoking area,” nor were there any steps taken to isolate customers and/or employees from the smoke.

Hasselback said that, in March 2013, Ladringan discovered that she was pregnant and informed her employer. Concerned for the health of her unborn child, Ladringan asked Lili Kondo and Lei that she be re-assigned to a location where she would not be exposed to cigarette smoke in an enclosed space when she worked.

Hasselback said this was not done.

On May 16, 2013, Ladringan’s physician provided her with a medical slip instructing her employer about the dangers of cigarette smoke for employees, especially those who are pregnant.

Hasselback said the slip contained a restrictive instruction that plaintiff should avoid smoke from tobacco for the duration of her pregnancy because the exposure increases the risk of premature labor and decreased birth weight.

Hasselback said Ladringan presented the medical slip to Lili Kondo and Lei, but she was not reassigned and instead was instructed to keep working in locations where customers regularly were permitted to smoke.

The lawyer said Lili Kondo and Lei demanded that Ladringan sign a “waiver letter” that would absolve the employer of any and all responsibility for any harm that might come to her or her unborn child as a result of her exposure to cigarette smoke.

Hasselback said Ladringan, however, was never provided any such letter by her employer.

On June 11, 2013, Ladringan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complaining that she was wrongfully discriminated against because of her pregnancy.

Hasselback said plaintiff was then transferred from a full-time status to a part-time status by reducing her work hours.

The lawyer said after learning about the EEOC complaint, Lili Kondo brought Ladringan to a meeting and told her to drop the case in exchange for restoring her work hours.

Hasselback said Ladringan was told that if she would not drop the complaint, the employer would revoke her work permit.

Hasselback said that on Oct. 14, 2014, the employer informed Ladringan through a letter that it would not be renewing her employment contract, nor would it renew her immigration status, ostensibly due to “downsizing” at the company.

Hasselback said this explanation was a lie intended to legitimize defendants’ discriminatory acts against Ladringan.