Chinese woman sues Louis Vuitton Guam for alleged discrimination

A Chinese woman and nine other Chinese nationals sued Louis Vuitton Guam in federal court on Friday for alleged discrimination, claiming the company paid them at a rate lower than non-Chinese employees and subjected them to hostile working environment.

Qian Yan Fejeran and nine other unnamed co-plaintiffs are suing Louis Vuitton Guam and nine other unnamed co-defendants for discrimination based on national origin and retaliation and discrimination based on disability.

Saipan Tribune tried but failed to obtain comments from Louis Vuitton Guam.

Fejeran, through counsel Colin Thompson, is demanding back pay with prejudgment interest, and front pay, compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, and damages.

According to Thompson, Fejeran filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Nov. 26, 2014, against Louis Vuitton Guam

On July 14, 2015, the EEOC issued Fejeran a notice of right to sue. Fejeran received the notice on July 22, 2015, Thompson said.

Fejeran was employed by Louis Vuitton Guam as a sales associate since June 21, 2001. In July 2007, she successfully completed the company’s intermediate language training for Japanese language. In January 2009, she successfully completed the company’s advanced Japanese language training.

In 2011, Fejeran was sent to Bangkok, Thailand for the art of service training. She received recognition as the store’s top seller. In 2012, Fejeran was sent to Paris as part of her 10-year service award. She was also sent to cultural trainings, including in 2007, when she was sent to Paris.

Thompson said the company hired a Japanese national (Kimi) in November 2006 as a sales associate. He said Kimi was immediately paid more than Fejeran and other Chinese nationals.

Thompson said during her employment, Fejeran was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her country of origin.

When Fejeran complained about discrimination, her complaints were allegedly ignored.

He said the defendants hired human resources specialist Frank Gibson to conduct an investigation and that Gibson’s finding acknowledged that the store manager used racially derogatory terms like “Stupid Chinese.”

In June 2011, Thompson said, Fejeran provided a letter from her doctor requesting accommodation for what was described as a “lifelong” situation resulting from her medical history.

Fejeran requested the following accommodations: not being required to lift objects over 20 lbs; limiting her working hours to 32 hours per week; and allowing her to sit approximately 5 minutes every one to two hours.

Thompson said the doctor indicated that Fejeran had knee pain and that X-ray images from January 2012 showed she had early onset of osteoarthritis in her right knee. Her doctor suggested that she be given the opportunity to sit down at least every two hours and that she should be limited from squatting repeatedly throughout the day, and carrying, pushing, or pulling loads greater than 15 lbs.

The company agreed and approved all of these requested accommodations.

In November 2013, Thompson said Fejeran was notified that she was being required to work 80 hours effective immediately.

In December 2014, defendants returned Fejeran’s work schedule to a 32-hour workweek.