Rami Ziyadat v. Diamondrock Hospitality Company, 3 F.4th 1291

Ziyadat, an Arab hotel guest, stayed at the Westin Fort Lauderdale; on day four he and his fiancée were at the pool when a towel attendant accused him of inappropriate conduct.
The attendant allegedly said “You don’t look like you belong here,” summoned security, and (according to Ziyadat) fabricated claims about his conduct.
Security and manager Robert Munn subsequently escorted Ziyadat and his fiancée out and denied a refund for remaining nights.
Ziyadat sued the hotel under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (racial discrimination in contracting), plus state-law breach of contract and defamation claims.
The district court dismissed the § 1981 claim with prejudice, finding insufficient causal link between the attendant’s alleged animus and the eviction; the court declined to retain the state-law claims.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that Ziyadat plausibly alleged a circumstantial § 1981 claim (including causation via a ‘‘cat’s-paw’’ theory) and that dismissal at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states a § 1981 claim for intentional racial discrimination causing a contractual injury	Ziyadat: attendant’s racial animus prompted a fabricated report that led to eviction, satisfying § 1981	Westin: attendant lacked decisionmaking authority and her animus did not cause the eviction	Court: plausibly pleaded circumstantial discrimination; claim survives 12(b)(6)
Whether plaintiff pleaded direct discrimination or must proceed circumstantially	Ziyadat: attendant’s statements and treatment show discrimination	Westin: no racial slur or overt race-based language, so no direct evidence	Court: no direct evidence; circumstantial McDonnell Douglas framework applies
Whether causation/but-for standard is met and whether cat’s-paw theory applies	Ziyadat: attendant intended and did cause the eviction via false report; thus race was but-for cause	Westin: cat’s-paw cannot satisfy a but-for causation standard here; manager independently decided	Court: cat’s-paw theory is compatible with but-for standard; plaintiff plausibly alleged the attendant’s animus was a but-for (determinative) cause
Whether dismissal with prejudice and denial of leave to amend were proper	Ziyadat: dismissal premature; should be allowed to amend if needed	Westin: complaint insufficient as pled	Court: dismissal was improper at pleading stage; vacated and remanded (implicitly allowing further proceedings)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004) (elements of § 1981 claim)
Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) (but-for causation under antidiscrimination law)
Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (direct vs. circumstantial proof)
Stimpson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 186 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 1999) (cat’s-paw liability discussion)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (imputation of biased acts by subordinates to decisionmaker)
Sims v. MVM, Inc., 704 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2013) (but-for standard applied to cat’s-paw scenarios)