66 F.4th 1110
8th Cir.2023Background
- Larry Johnson (Black), a frequent Marriott Bonvoy “silver elite” guest, stayed at the Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury Hotel on June 4, 2020 and encountered service problems: locked main entrance, a curt reception, a demand to show Bonvoy membership, a room with dirty bedding, and denial of a room switch (hotel later provided a full refund).
- Johnson complained to the assistant manager about differential treatment and requested a room change; a roughly seven-minute conversation ensued and the assistant manager called police to remove him before checkout.
- The Hotel explained its actions as nondiscriminatory operational responses to local social protests and the early COVID-19 pandemic: locked doors, enhanced check-in, reduced housekeeping and staffing, restaurant and floor closures, and discouragement of room changes.
- Johnson sued under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination and for retaliation/unfair reprisal; the district court granted summary judgment to the Hotel.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the discrimination claims and on retaliation/reprisal, concluding the Hotel offered unrebutted, non-pretextual reasons and that Johnson’s conduct broke any causal link; Judge Kelly concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing genuine disputes remain on reprisal/retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHRA public-accommodation discrimination | Hotel treated Johnson more harshly because of race; treatment was "so at variance" it implies discrimination | Actions were legitimate, nondiscriminatory COVID- and protest-driven policies and staffing decisions | Affirmed: Hotel offered non-pretextual reasons; Johnson failed to show pretext or sufficient indirect evidence of discriminatory intent |
| MHRA unfair reprisal (retaliation for complaint) | After Johnson complained about racial treatment to assistant manager, Hotel called police to eject him — causal link | Hotel called police because Johnson became agitated/aggressive; his conduct justified removal, breaking causal chain | Affirmed: Johnson failed to prove protected activity causally led to ejection; intervening conduct negated inference of retaliation |
| § 1981 discrimination (contractual benefits) | Denial of equal terms/conditions of stay was due to race | Same nondiscriminatory operational explanations; no discriminatory intent shown | Affirmed: Johnson did not rebut Hotel’s legitimate reasons or show discriminatory intent required under § 1981 |
| § 1981 retaliation | Calling police and ejecting Johnson was retaliation for his complaint about race | Police were called because of Johnson’s conduct (agitation), not his complaint | Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to establish causal link between protected complaint and adverse action |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment/discrimination contexts)
- Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1999) (intervening unprotected conduct can sever causal inference from temporal proximity)
- Green v. Franklin Nat’l Bank, 459 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2006) (timing can support causation but requires more than mere proximity in many cases)
- Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 758 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2014) (temporal proximity alone is rarely sufficient to prove causation)
- Comcast Corp. v. National Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (but-for causation required for § 1981 claims)
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (retaliation claims are actionable under § 1981)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standards; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)