FREE! Subscribe to News Fetch, THE daily wine industry briefing - Click Here


Sponsored by:
Banner_Xpur_160x600---Wine-Industry-Insight[63]
InnoVint_WII_ad_portrait

Napa Valley Wine Train lawsuit – legal summary and complaint document

October 2, 2015 | Filed under Featured Articles | Posted by

Screen Shot 2015-10-02 at 5.22.43 AM
The following are selected excerpts from the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco on October 1.

No court response has been made yet by the Napa Valley Wine Train which issued a brief statement via crisis-management public relations firm Singer Associates.

The full, 21-page complaint is downloadable by Wine Executive News premium subscribers at this link.

Due to the very late hour at which this suit was filed, Wine Industry Insight has not had sufficient to review the complaint in order to write an original article. The excerpts, below, are a very quick first pass at excerpting key elements.

In addition, the text may contain scanning artifacts remaining when the .pdf file — which was an image and not a text file — was converted via optical character recognition. We regret any such artifact typos which may remain. Names in ALL CAPS are either plaintiffs or defendants. We have added descriptions [in brackets].

Paragraph spaces have been added to make reading easier.  In addition, the original line numbers from the complaint remain because of time issues.

The text is contiguous except where “***” marks a discontiguous jump to content further along. Subheads have also been added to aid reading.

 Complaint Excerpts

On or around May 12,2015, DEBORAH NEAL [defendant]called the Wine Train office to book
9 the reservation on the wine train.

At the time, DEBORAH NEAL once again communicated to
10 the reservationist that the group was a book club and it was the group’s first trip on the train.
11 DEBORAH NEAL also communicated to the reservationist that the group would be discussing
12 the monthly book with lots of dialogue and laughter, and that there would be a certain group
13 noise level commensurate of 11 individuals.

The rese1vationist assured DEBORAH NEAL that
14 the wine train had groups all the time and the train could accommodate the group.

***
32. Plaintiffs were seated in the back of the last train car. Plaintiffs are informed and
7 believe now that as a group of African Americans, they were put in the back car to be “seen and
8 not heard.”
9 33. The group boarded the train around 11 :00 a.m. They were seated at two tables that
10 allowed for four people to sit on each side of the aisle, and the additional three members were
11 seated along the window in an “L” shaped configuration. This seating arrangement was not
12 accommodating for group communication.
***

Conflict began before train left station

 35. Before the train left the station in Napa, the Wine Train’s maitre d’hotel, Defendant
16 MARQUINN [maitre d’], approached the group and admonished them to “tone down your noise level
17 because you’re being offensive to other passengers.”
When asked which passengers were
18 offended, MARQUINN refused to answer. JOHNSON [plaintiff] communicated to MARQUINN that
19 they would do their best, but it was difficult for a group of eleven. Plaintiffs felt like they were
20 children being scolded by a parent.
21 36. After the train left the station, each woman was given a complimentary wine tasting,
22 which consisted of a small glass of wine. Four of the women ordered non-alcoholic beverages
23 because they do not drink alcohol.

Second warning issued 45 minutes later

24 3 7. About 45 minutes after the first warning, while the group was still settling into their
25 seats, MARQUINN returned and again admonished the group to tone it down, stating, “That’s
26 it. This is not going to work. Either you guys tone it down or I am going to have to ask you to
27 leave the train.” MARQUINN stated that the group was offending other passengers. When
once again asked which passengers were offended, MARQUINN stated “! can see it on the face
2 of other passengers when you laugh out loud.”

Plaintiff’s assert appropriate noise level

3 38. Plaintiffs were conversing and interacting at a noise level that was appropriate and
4 reasonable for a group of eleven individuals seated in the manner in which Plaintiffs were.
5 39. JOHNSON spoke with the couple next to them who stated they had not complained,
6 and were enjoying the group’s company.

“This is not a bar

7 40. At this point, a Caucasian passenger leaned into the aisle and stated to JOHNSON,
8 “This is not a bar.”
JOHNSON responded that it was a bar; it was named the Bar Car; and
9 pointed to the bar behind the passenger.
10 41. JOHNSON spoke with MARQUINN and expressed her concerns that the book club
11 was being singled out for being African-American because other Caucasian passengers nearby
12 were laughing loudly and enjoying themselves, but were not being singled out. MARQUINN
13 was abrupt and rude when speaking to JOHNSON.

Worry about being left “in the middle of nowhere”

42. The group was worried about being kicked off the train in the middle of nowhere, so
15 they asked MARQUINN questions about returning to their vehicles and not being stranded
16 along the side of the tracks.
MARQUINN didn’t want to answer their questions, so she brushed
17 the issues off as a “customer service issue” and walked away. MARQUINN refused to discuss
18 the situation with Plaintiffs, leaving Plaintiffs feeling as if they were not being heard.
19 43. When MARQUINN next passed through the bar car, JOHNSON got her attention and
20 stated “We’ve decided that since we don’t know how we would get back to Napa to our
21 vehicles, we are going to stay on the train.”
22 44. MARQUINN responded “Oh, don’t worry, when we reach St. Helena, police officers
23 will be waiting to escort you off the train.” This sparked confusion amongst Plaintiffs because
24 they had not done anything wrong.
25 45. MARQUINN made disparaging statements, including but not limited to statements to
26 police and others that Plaintiffs were unruly and aggressive; all being stereotypes related to how
27 African Americans are viewed.
***

 “Humiliation” in St. Helena

46. When the train arrived in St. Helena, the other passengers in the Bar Car were escorted
2 to the dining cars for lunch. Plaintiffs were placed in purgatory: they were forced to wait in the
3 Bar Car and were not allowed to leave the train.
4 4 7. After fifteen minutes, members of the Wine Train staff arrived to escort the women
5 from the train.
They were not allowed to exit through the door attached to their train car.
6 48. Instead, all eleven women were humiliatingly marched through six train cars to exit at
7 the front of the train, past all of the passengers who were eating lunch, laughing, and enjoying
8 themselves.
Many of the passengers snickered at Plaintiffs as they passed. Plaintiffs passed
9 multiple groups of Caucasians who were inebriated and acting boisterous, but these groups were
10 not kicked off the Wine Train.
***

Police: First time ever to respond to Wine Train complaint

53. Plaintiffs stepped off the train into a dirt lot to four waiting police officers. Three were
28 from the St. Helena police department, and one was a Wine Train rail officer.
1 54. Upon speaking with the Plaintiffs, one officer stated, “You are not what we expected.
2 We were told there were 11 unruly passengers.”
3 55. Prior to this occurrence, the St. Helena police had never been called to remove
4 passengers from the Wine Train by Defendants.
5 56. The Plaintiffs stood outside baking in the hot sun speaking with the police officers for
6 over twenty minutes. Meanwhile, all of the train’s passengers looked out the window like the
7 Plaintiffs were in a fishbowl, imagining what it is they could have done that prompted them to
8 be ejected from the train.
9 57. After the group was removed from the train, MARQUINN spoke with other Wine
10 Train staff members involved in the incident to change their stories to agree with hers.
11 58. A 12-passenger van drove all eleven women back to Napa.