The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC
25 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1995–2026)
4 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases · 1 docket-only case without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC as an employer in 25 distinct federal employment cases between 1995 and 2026.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Harassment.
Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in MO.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 4 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Jose Antonio Santana Rubio v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC (2024) — Remanded. Jose Antonio Santana Rubio filed a lawsuit against the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company and another individual named Palmas, claiming he faced retaliation for reporting workplace violations. Read the ruling.
Shyanguya v. Employment Security Appeals Referees' Office (2014) — Defendant Win. Based on the limited information available, this case involved a dispute between someone named Shyanguya and Hawaii's Employment Security Appeals Referees' Office. This office handles appeals related to unemployment benefits and other employment security matters in Hawaii. Read the ruling.
Trbovich v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. (1995) — Mixed Result. Tracy Asaro worked for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company and claimed she experienced discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at work, resulting in a hostile work environment. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation, Discrimination, Harassment. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Harassment.
Published opinions span Missouri (1), Hawaii (1), California (1). Missouri is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Missouri rulings, Hawaii rulings and California rulings.
These published opinions sit within the hospitality sector, where wage theft, tip-pooling violations, and sexual-harassment claims are common.
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Hospitality & Food Service employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.