Patricia C. Flournoy v. CML-GA WB, LLC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5304
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patricia Flournoy, an African‑American owner of Karisma Hair Studio, applied in 2012 to lease a rear commercial unit in the JB Whites building in Augusta.
- Rex Property & Land (manager), CML‑GA WB, LLC (owner), and Rialto Capital Advisors (manager) handled leasing; Paul King (Rex) and Bradley Kentor (Rialto) were involved in the decision.
- Defendants ran credit/background checks; Flournoy’s credit score was under 700. Defendants requested a business plan and ultimately denied the application; communications ceased after a meeting in which King cited low credit and other concerns.
- Defendants articulated multiple nondiscriminatory reasons for denial: insufficient credit, smell/ventilation concerns affecting upstairs residential tenants, high salon failure rates, poor ‘‘cross‑shopping’’ potential, and high build‑out costs for the unit.
- Flournoy sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race‑based intentional discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that Flournoy failed to rebut defendants’ nondiscriminatory reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flournoy made a prima facie § 1981 case | Flournoy argued denial of lease was race‑motivated and she belongs to a protected class | Defendants contested discriminatory intent; raised legitimate reasons for denial | Court assumed prima facie case could be made but resolved the case on the next stage (see below) |
| Whether defendants offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons | Flournoy disputed legitimacy of the reasons (esp. the 700 credit requirement) and pointed to inconsistencies | Defendants produced multiple legitimate reasons (credit, odors/ventilation, cross‑shopping, failure risk, build‑out cost) | Defendants met their light burden to articulate legitimate reasons |
| Whether Flournoy rebutted those reasons as pretext | Flournoy emphasized inconsistencies about the credit policy and timing, and that another white applicant learned of the policy later | Defendants argued multiple independent, credible reasons remain unrebutted | Held for defendants: plaintiff failed to rebut each proffered reason; showing one false reason (credit) insufficient where others stand |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Flournoy argued disputes of fact precluded summary judgment | Defendants argued no genuine issue as to material facts on pretext for all reasons | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants because plaintiff did not create genuine dispute on several nondiscriminatory reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (defendant’s production burden and plaintiff’s burden to prove pretext)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must rebut each of multiple legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (false explanation can permit inference of discriminatory intent, but context matters)