Boggerty v. Stewart, 14 A.3d 542

Appellants allege Carmike Cinemas violated the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law (DEAL) by a pre-show announcement that allegedly demeaned an African-American audience.
The October 12, 2007 showing at Carmike Dover had three auditoriums; the largest seated 130, two smaller 50 each; the largest auditorium was essentially full with 90–95% African-American attendees.
Stewart, a Caucasian theater manager, announced to turn off phones, stay quiet, and remain seated; he apologized after being confronted by a patron.
The State Human Relations Commission found a DEAL violation (4504(a)) and awarded damages, plus fees and a fund contribution; the Superior Court later reversed.
The Superior Court held the Commission erred in applying a 'markedly hostile' standard and in finding the conduct constituted denial of access under DEAL.
The Delaware Supreme Court affirms, holding no prima facie discrimination and that the Commission misapplied McDonnell Douglas burden shifting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie discrimination established?	Boggerty argues disparate treatment occurred based on race.	Stewart/Carmike contends all audience members were treated the same.	No prima facie discriminatory showing
Proper application of McDonnell Douglas burden shifting?	Appellants contend the Commission properly inferred racial motivation after weak non-pretext	Appellees produced a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (policy) and lacked pretext evidence	Commission misapplied the framework; no pretext established; ruling affirmed

Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
Quaker Hill Place v. Saville, 523 A.2d 947 (Del. Super. Ct. 1987) (Del. failure to show pretext under DEAL framework)
Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977) (proof of discriminatory motive is critical)