Alexander v. The Stop and Shop Supermarket Company LLC

Background

Jeriel Alexander, proceeding without a lawyer, sued The Stop and Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Civil Rights Law § 40. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a claim without a trial when no genuine dispute about a legally important fact requires a jury’s decision.

Alexander alleged that on August 7, 2020, a white female Stop & Shop employee watched him at a self-checkout, used racial slurs, accused him of stealing, threatened to call police, and followed him toward the exit. He said she checked his receipt and grocery bags, while white or non-minority customers were not similarly checked. The record showed that Alexander completed his grocery purchase before the alleged slurs, receipt check, and bag inspection. Alexander and his sister also described later encounters in October and November 2020, but the court found those allegations conclusory and insufficient to support an inference of race-based intent.

Section 1981 claims

The court granted Stop & Shop summary judgment on Alexander’s Section 1981 “make and enforce contracts” claims. For the August 7 incident, the court held that the evidence showed the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred after Alexander completed his purchase. Because the contractual relationship involved a single retail transaction that had ended, the alleged conduct did not interfere with Alexander’s right to make or enforce that contract. The court also granted summary judgment on the contract-related claims based on the October and November incidents because Alexander offered only conclusory assertions of racial profiling and his sister’s general statement that he was harassed and denied service.

The court denied summary judgment to both sides on Alexander’s Section 1981 “equal benefit” claim based on August 7. This type of claim concerns racial discrimination that denies a person the full and equal benefit of laws or proceedings protecting persons and property. The court found evidence from which a jury could find intentional discrimination, including the alleged racial slurs and the claimed difference between the treatment of Alexander and the treatment of white or non-minority customers. The court explained that such a claim can exist even after a retail purchase is complete, because the alleged conduct could have deprived Alexander of the equal benefit of a state public-accommodations law. Credibility questions prevented the court from deciding the claim for either party at summary judgment.

New York claims

The court applied the same general legal standard to Alexander’s New York Human Rights Law claim and denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions on the claim based on the August 7 incident. Because the related Section 1981 equal-benefit claim remained for trial, the related New York Human Rights Law claim also remained for trial.

Stop & Shop moved for summary judgment on Alexander’s New York Civil Rights Law claim based on his alleged failure to notify the New York attorney general before filing suit. The court denied that motion. Although the record did not show clearly when Alexander contacted the attorney general or whether the contact concerned these incidents, Alexander said he could provide evidence of timely notice. The court therefore could not determine the notice issue as a matter of law and stated that it could revisit the issue before trial.

The court granted Stop & Shop summary judgment on Alexander’s New York City Human Rights Law claim because the alleged events occurred at a store in White Plains, New York, outside New York City. Alexander’s cross-motion for summary judgment on that claim was denied.

Other issues and disposition

The court treated punitive damages as a request for relief rather than a separate claim. It declined to decide at summary judgment whether Alexander could prove the willful, wanton, reckless, or malicious conduct needed for that potential relief, leaving the issue for trial. The court also did not decide certain evidentiary requests because it had not relied on the challenged recordings or affidavit.

Judge Andrew E. Krause’s final disposition was that Stop & Shop’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, and Alexander’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. The claims remaining at that stage were Alexander’s Section 1981 equal-benefit claim based on August 7, 2020, and his related discrimination claims under the New York Human Rights Law and New York Civil Rights Law.