Lopez v. Target Corp., 676 F.3d 1230

Lopez, a Hispanic man, shopped at a Target in Orlando on May 21, 2008; Winn, a white cashier, refused to serve him at her register and publicly mocked him when he returned.
Lopez eventually purchased items at a different register after a supervisor instructed Winn to accept his payment, though Winn again refused loudly that her register was closed to him.
Lopez was humiliated and distressed by Winn's conduct, which occurred in view of other customers; he received a store coupon apology from a supervisor.
On November 19, 2010, Lopez filed a five-count complaint in Florida state court against Winn and Target, asserting IIED against Winn, vicarious liability and negligent training against Target, and § 1981 claims against both.
Target removed the case to the district court, which dismissed counts II, III, and V, and López moved to alter or amend; the district court’s dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s claims-dismissal rulings and ultimately agrees that López’s § 1981 and IIED claims fail under Florida law and controlling precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Winn’s conduct violated § 1981 by denying López a contract.	Lopez argues Winn's refusal to serve him impaired his right to contract with Target.	Target contends López was not actually denied a contract because he completed the purchase with Target at standard terms.	Lopez cannot state a § 1981 claim; he was not actually denied a contract.
Whether Winn’s conduct was sufficiently outrageous to state an IIED claim under Florida law.	Lopez claims extreme and public humiliation and persistent rude conduct support IIED.	Winn’s conduct, while rude, did not reach Florida’s outrageousness standard for IIED.	The conduct did not meet Florida’s extreme standard; IIED claim affirmatively fails.

Kinnon v. Arcoub, Gopman & Assocs., Inc., 490 F.3d 886 (11th Cir.2007) (retail §1981 claim requires actual denial of contract rights; pre-contract harassment insufficient)
Arguello v. Conoco, Inc., 330 F.3d 355 (5th Cir.2003) (retail context §1981 requires actual loss of contract interest; pre-purchase conduct insufficient)
Williams v. Worldwide Flight Servs. Inc., 877 So.2d 869 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.2004) (insufficient for IIED where только verbal abuse or insults; not extreme outrageousness)
Lay v. Roux Labs., Inc., 379 So.2d 451 (Fla.1st Dist.Ct.App.1980) (vicious verbal attacks not enough for IIED outrageousness)
Nims v. Harrison, 768 So.2d 1198 (Fla.1st Dist.Ct.App.2000) (profane, racially derogatory language with threats may state IIED; here not met)
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So.2d 277 (Fla.1985) (Restatement-based standard for Florida IIED outrageousness)