Floyd Elmore v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23183
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Floyd Elmore, an African American, visited a Harbor Freight store; a store manager accused him of earlier shoplifting and said she would call police. A male companion made an obscene gesture; police later treated it as a civil matter and told Elmore to leave.
- Elmore returned with his wife, photographed the companion, then spoke with Harbor Freight’s district manager, who expressed sympathy.
- Elmore sued Harbor Freight in federal court asserting a § 1981 claim for denial of the full and equal benefit of the law and two state-law negligence claims for failure to train/supervise employees.
- Harbor Freight moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed the § 1981 claim for failure to allege state action and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
- Elmore appealed. The Eighth Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo for § 1981 and reviewed the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1981 claim requires allegation of state action | Elmore: § 1981's text covers private deprivation of full-and-equal benefit; no state-action requirement | Harbor Freight: Eighth Circuit precedent requires state action to state a § 1981 full-and-equal-benefit claim | Court: Bound by Youngblood — plaintiff must allege state action; § 1981 claim dismissed for failure to plead state action |
| Whether district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state negligence claims after federal claim dismissal | Elmore: Implicitly urged retention to resolve all claims in one forum | Harbor Freight: Recommended dismissal of state claims without prejudice after federal claim dismissed | Court: District court did not abuse discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Youngblood v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 266 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2001) (requires state action to bring full-and-equal-benefit § 1981 claim)
- Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2004) (clarifies pleading requirement that state action be alleged for § 1981 full-and-equal-benefit claims)
- Chapman v. Higbee Co., 319 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2003) (contrasting view that private actors can violate § 1981 without state action)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes the plausibility pleading requirement)
- Bilello v. Kum & Go, LLC, 374 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2004) (applies circuit precedent on § 1981 and state-action issues)
- Crest Construction II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2011) (district courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 738 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2013) (factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity)