Celebrity hotelier André Balazs cruelly told a mom with a severely disabled son to get lost when she applied for a job — saying her child would be too much of a drain on her productivity, court papers charge.
“He looked at me and said, ‘You will never work for me,” shattered mom Karen Anderson, 58, told The Post. “He said, ‘If you have a disabled child, you will never be able to give me 100 percent.’ ”
She claimed the snooty businessman gave her a pretentious send-off as he showed her the door.
“He did the ‘French’ kiss, where he kissed each of my cheeks, but I couldn’t get out of there fast enough,” Anderson said.
“I felt very humiliated. I cried the whole way home.”
Balazs — who enjoys an on-again, off-again relationship with “Kill Bill” actress Uma Thurman — owns The Standard hotel in the Meatpacking District, Sunset Beach on Shelter Island and the famed Chateau Marmont in Hollywood.
Anderson was being given a final interview for a controller job at Sunset Beach in August 2014 when Balazs asked her what her ideal job would be, according to her discrimination lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court.
Anderson answered that she’d like to run a nursing home — and Balazs immediately started mocking her, the suit says.
“Do you know how schizophrenic you sound? Did you hear yourself?” the suit says.
Anderson explained that she has a son in his 20s who has muscular dystrophy and lives in a Maine nursing home, but Balazs cut her off, the papers say.
“Balazs called Ms. Anderson ‘crazy’ and stated she could never work for him, given the fact that she had a disabled son, as she would not be able to devote adequate time to her professional responsibilities,’’ the suit says.
The suit seeks unspecified damages.
The hotelier’s behavior was “unacceptable,” and “discriminatory,” said Anderson’s lawyer, George Vallas.
Balazs tried to get her lawsuit, which was filed in January, tossed out, but a federal court judge rejected his motion Monday.
Balazs’ lawyer, Kenneth Taber, said, “We remain firmly of the view that the company’s underlying employment decision here was made on the merits and was not based on any discriminatory considerations.”