He explained that I'd disrupted a confidential business meeting.
Catherine listened.
Then asked whether he'd interviewed the witnesses.
He hesitated.
"Not all of them."
She looked toward the report.
"Did you review the video?"
"Not before making the temporary decision."
"Did the guest throw a menu at her?"
Paul looked uncomfortable.
"Apparently."
"Did he initiate the wager?"
"Yes."
"Did another guest request legal verification of a document?"
Paul nodded.
Catherine leaned back.
For several seconds, she said nothing.
Then asked, "Why is the employee the only person whose conduct you immediately treated as a problem?"
Paul didn't answer.
The question stayed in the room.
Later, Catherine contacted Rachel through the appropriate channels.
She explained that the hotel would review the incident independently and asked whether I would provide a statement.
I agreed.
But I requested that my employment concerns be addressed separately from the commercial dispute between Whitmore and Jade Harbor.
I didn't want the hotel deciding whether I deserved my job based on whether the forty-million-dollar concern ultimately proved fraudulent.
Even if the revised schedule turned out to be properly authorized, throwing a menu at me and wagering on my language ability would still have been degrading.
And retaliating against an employee for answering a guest's challenge would still require examination.
Catherine agreed.
That was the first time I felt someone in management understood the distinction.
The independent review began with witness interviews.
Teresa gave a statement.
So did the young attendant near the private dining room.
Several customers described what they saw.
The hotel reviewed security footage showing Whitmore throwing the menu and making the wager.
The footage supported my account of the physical humiliation.
The hotel also examined Paul's decision to remove me from duty before interviewing witnesses.
I was given an opportunity to explain my actions.
I told the truth.
I had served the table professionally.
I had recognized a document connected to a matter I previously reviewed.
Whitmore publicly challenged my language skills.
I answered in Cantonese and warned Mr. Lam of an apparent discrepancy, directing him to verify it with counsel.
I hadn't intended to provide legal advice.
I hadn't sought to embarrass Whitmore for entertainment.
And I hadn't asked him to make the bet.
I also acknowledged that a server raising an unrelated financial concern during a confidential business meeting was unusual and could create difficulties for an employer.
I didn't pretend otherwise.
But unusual didn't mean malicious.
And the employer needed to understand the circumstances before treating my actions as misconduct.
The hotel eventually reinstated me to the schedule with back pay for the shifts I'd lost during the review.
It also began revising its procedures for handling abusive guests and reporting concerns about management decisions.
Paul Donovan received disciplinary action and was required to undergo additional management training.
His authority over certain personnel decisions was temporarily limited.
I didn't demand his dismissal.
I wanted the hotel to address what happened fairly.
When Catherine offered to meet with me, I accepted.
We sat in a quiet conference room near the main lobby.
She looked directly at me.
"Naomi, I'm sorry."
I took a breath.
"Thank you."
She continued.
"You should not have been subjected to that treatment."