Marriott And Blue Sky Sued For Sex Discrimination

NYSDHR Case Number 10269146

On August 13, 2026 at the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”), The Law Office of David H. Rosenberg, P.C. filed a verified complaint on behalf of its male client against Marriott International Inc. Agent For Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC (“Marriott International”),  The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC (“Ritz-Carlton”), Navika Capital Group LLC (“Navika”), Blue Sky Hospitality Solutions LLC (“Blue Sky”), Stephen Bello, an individual (“Bello”), Madhu Pareek, an individual (“Pareek”), and Naveen Shah, an individual (“Shah”), with sex/age (“protected classes”) discrimination and retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices.  

The entity respondents have 15 or more employees. Complainant was terminated on November 4, 2025, on account of the protected classes and in retaliation of his opposition to discriminatory practices. 

As alleged in the verified complaint, on April 22, 2024, Complainant commenced employment as Regional Vice President of Operations, earning $150,000 per year. On or around May 20, 2024, Bello told Complainant generally, “I don’t like you, and I don’t believe you deserve to sit in the seat that you are in.” Bello then demoted Complainant to Associate Vice President of Compliance, reducing his salary by $30,000 per year. Other employees outside of the protected classes were not treated this way.

According to the verified complaint, on April 1, 2025, Complainant heard Pareek tell male general manager Karni Singh (“Singh”), in response to being handed Singh’s letter of resignation, words to the effect of, “I will fire [Complainant] if you stay with the Company. He is too immature for the position he holds.” Singh said, “[Complainant] was never the problem, you were,” while speaking to Pareek.  Other employees outside of the protected classes were not treated this way.

As also alleged in the verified complaint, on May 1, 2025, Pareek told Complainant generally, “You are like a little boy to me, complaining about not getting his way.”  Other employees outside of the protected classes were not treated this way.

According to the publicly filed verified complaint, on May 15, 2025, Pareek told Complainant generally, “Your head is not all there, you’re a little boy, you have no idea what you are talking about” and “you’re not all there.” Complainant reported this to Bello and said, “Madhu has been unbelievably disrespectful, creating a hostile work environment, and even threatened to have me fired.” Bello replied generally, “I told everyone that having Madhu work alongside you was a bad idea.” Notwithstanding this complaint, no investigation was conducted, no corrective action was taken, and no disciplinary action was given. On the contrary, the hostility only continued.

As alleged in the publicly filed verified complaint, on June 1, 2025, Pareek said to Complainant words to the effect of, “Again, like a parent disciplining a child, I will tell Stephen and Naveen that you’re not doing your job if you don’t do what I ask you to do.”

According to the publicly filed verified complaint, on July 1, 2025, Pareek said to Complainant generally,  “Do you really want me to get Stephen involved with this? I’ll go get him now and get you out of this company.” Complainant told female Human Resources Director Rabia Mehboob (“Mehboob”) and Bello, “The way Madhu had treated me for the past few months has created a hostile work environment.” Notwithstanding this complaint, no investigation was conducted, no corrective action was taken, and no disciplinary action was given. On the contrary, the hostility only continued.

Also, according to the publicly filed verified complaint, on August 14, 2025, Bello told Complainant words to the effect of, “You rolled your eyes at me like a little child. You. Out. Now.” This was done at a board meeting in front of several employees. The next day, Bello placed Complainant on a performance improvement plan based on false allegations of wrongdoing. Other employees outside of the protected classes and those who did not oppose discriminatory practices were not treated this way.

As also alleged in the publicly filed verified complaint, around November 4, 2025, Pareek quickly pulled a new associate away from Complainant and said words to the effect of, “Don’t talk to him; he’s trouble.” Complainant was then terminated on account of the protected classes and in retaliation. 

As alleged in the verified complaint, on May 13, 2026, Marriott employee Lisa Jackson informed Complainant that Pareek had him listed as “do not rehire” for Marriott. Other employees outside of the protected classes and those who did not oppose discriminatory practices were not treated this way.

According to the verified complaint, on June 23, 2026, Mehboob told Allison & Taylor consultant Elizabeth Henry, “[Complainant] was terminated due to unsatisfactory job performance.” As such, Complainant continues to be wrongfully denied employment on account of the protected classes and in retaliation of his opposition to discriminatory practices. The female general manager of the Hilton Garden Inn in Roslyn canceled Complainant’s scheduled interview “due to newly discovered information provided by your former employer,” the entity Respondents. Other employees outside of the protected classes and those who did not oppose discriminatory practices were not treated this way.

As also alleged in the verified complaint, on June 30, 2026, Complainant complained of the aforesaid discrimination and retaliation in writing to Marriott International and Shah. In retaliation, Shah falsely accused Complainant of spreading rumors that he, Shah, was having an extramarital affair with a “senior level employee.”

According to the publicly filed verified complaint, on August 10, 2026, Complainant received a letter from Blue Sky lawyer Eric Su, written on behalf of Shah, that accused Complainant of writing a demand letter (“Demand”) “that falsely and unlawfully accused Mr. [Naveen] Shah of engaging in a personal relationship with a senior level employee.” Shah falsely accused Complainant of seeking to “spread falsehood about an affair to embarrass and harm Mr. Shah, destroy his reputation and good standing in the community and damage his relationship with the Company’s employees and his family.” 

According to Shah, Complainant “harmed the reputation of other senior employees of the [sic] Blue Sky, but not limited to Madhu Pareek and Raba Mehboob.” However, Complainant never wrote such a Demand and was unaware of any “personal relationship with a senior level employee.” Other employees outside of the protected classes and those who did not oppose discriminatory practices were not treated this way.

Notably, according to the verified complaint, Shah gave Complainant “no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2026” to issue a “statement of retraction” in order “to avoid the [sic] Mr. Shah and the Company proceeding to plan to engage in legal action.” Shah also demanded, “documents or other information that directly disproves your involvement in the Demands.” However, Shah knew when he wrote this letter that Complainant never authored any Demands and has no information whatsoever on his alleged “personal relationship.” Other employees outside of the protected classes and those who did not oppose discriminatory practices were not treated this way.

Complainant is asking the NYSDHR for compensatory, emotional, and punitive damages as well as maximum civil fines, penalties, and a cease and desist order restraining Respondents’ unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory practices described herein. 

If you or someone you know is suffering at work, contact The Law Office of David H. Rosenberg, P.C. Problems at work are no problem for us.

The information and allegations cited herein come directly from publicly filed documentation and are meant as a form of attorney advertising.