A lawsuit filed in federal court claims that management at a local hotel chain discriminated against Black employees by reducing their work hours, assigning them extra duties, and replacing them with non-Black workers after they attempted to form a union. The complaint was submitted by Jaleel Ford on March 26, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Hilton Worldwide, Hilton Garden Inn Detroit-Southfield, and general manager Andy Ibrahim.
According to the filing, Ford began working as a housekeeper at the Hilton Garden Inn Detroit-Southfield in August 2024. After one month, he was transferred to work banquets. Ford states that when he was hired, he requested at least one day off each weekend due to a court-ordered joint custody arrangement involving his children. Management reportedly agreed to this request so Ford would not violate the court order.
The complaint details several changes in Ford’s employment conditions following his transfer from housekeeping to banquets. He asserts that his hourly wage was reduced from $15 to $13 per hour because he was now eligible for tips as part of banquet service. In September 2025, Andy Ibrahim became general manager of the hotel. Ford alleges that Ibrahim told him and other Black employees they were no longer allowed to work overtime because it constituted stealing.
Ford further claims that during a staff meeting led by another manager named Susan Smith, Black employees were informed that Ibrahim planned to replace them with ‘his people,’ described as white immigrants. Smith allegedly encouraged Black employees to start a union and facilitated signature gathering for this purpose. According to Ford’s account, after learning which employees had signed up for unionization efforts—including himself—Ibrahim subjected those individuals to additional job duties outside their original descriptions and required them to complete more tasks within shorter timeframes than other staff members.
The complaint states that beginning in October 2025, Ibrahim hired multiple new employees—none of whom were Black—and some of whom are alleged by Ford to be illegal immigrants. Following these hires, work hours for Black employees were reportedly shortened or eliminated altogether while new white employees and alleged illegal immigrants received those hours instead. As evidence of these practices, Ford references an exhibit containing a photograph taken by Ibrahim with some of the newly hired workers in December 2025.
Ford also contends that after management discovered his involvement in union activities, he was assigned tasks not included in his job description—tasks not given to white or immigrant colleagues—and required him and other Black staff members to finish assignments left incomplete by others. He describes this as part of what he calls a hostile work environment based on race: “Defendant Ibrahim knowingly and willingly created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff and other black employees because they are black.” The complaint continues: “Defendant Ibrahim intentionally worsened the work environment due to racial harassment and unfair treatment because Plaintiff is black.” It is further alleged that only Black employees faced reductions in hours or were required to take on extra assignments; white employees or illegal immigrants did not face similar treatment.
Ford’s legal arguments cite Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Fifth Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution. He references Supreme Court cases including Vance v. Ball State University (2013) regarding supervisor authority under Title VII and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) concerning employer liability for supervisor actions.
In terms of relief sought from the court, Ford requests compensatory damages totaling $2 million plus punitive damages also totaling $2 million from all defendants involved. He additionally asks for any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.
Ford is representing himself (in pro per) in this matter; no attorneys are listed on either side according to the filing documents provided. The case has been assigned number 2:26-cv-11014-SJM-EAS.
Source: 226cv11014_Jaleel_Ford_v_Hilton_Worldwide_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
