Harris v. Enterprise Holding Inc.

Background

Alonzo Harris, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued Enterprise Holding Inc. and ELRAC, LLC. The court stated that “Enterprise Car Rental” was later replaced on the docket by ELRAC, LLC based on a representation by the defendants.

Harris alleged that he is African American and that, on or about November 27, 2019, he went to rent a car at an Enterprise facility in the Bronx. He alleged that one employee told him he needed additional documents, but that after he briefly left to retrieve them, a different employee—whom Harris later identified as the manager—refused to let him back into the facility to complete the rental and spoke disrespectfully to him. Harris said he complained to Enterprise on November 29, 2019, but never received a response.

Harris further alleged that on or about May 22, 2020, he tried to rent a car from Alamo Rent-A-Car at Miami International Airport and was told that his name had been placed on a “do not rent list” at Enterprise’s request. He said he made additional complaints and attempted further contacts with the defendants. The New York City Commission on Human Rights administratively closed his complaint on September 26, 2023. Harris filed this federal action on July 22, 2024.

Court’s analysis

Harris did not identify a specific cause of action or jurisdictional basis. Because his allegations involved alleged racial discrimination in a commercial transaction, the court interpreted the complaint as potentially asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.

For Section 1981, the court explained that the limitations period in New York is generally three years, although a four-year period can apply in some cases involving discriminatory contracts. The court said that, under either period, the claim appeared untimely regardless of whether the limitations period was measured from the alleged rental denial, the alleged placement on the “do not rent list,” or other dates identified in the complaint. The court also stated that the New York City Commission on Human Rights proceeding did not pause the limitations period.

The court said dismissal based on a time limit can be appropriate when the time bar is clear from the complaint. It concluded that the face of Harris’s complaint indicated that the action was time-barred and that the defendants had stated they would not waive that defense. However, because Harris was representing himself, the court gave him an opportunity to explain why the Section 1981 claim should not be dismissed.

For the potential Section 2000a claim, the court explained that the statute prohibits race discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations at listed public accommodations. The court stated that the list is exhaustive and does not include car-rental facilities. It therefore said it was inclined to dismiss this potential claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, but also gave Harris an opportunity to respond.

Order and effect

The court granted Harris leave until February 14, 2025, to file a letter showing why the action should not be dismissed as time-barred and for failure to state a claim. The order did not itself dismiss the action. It stated that the case would be dismissed in its entirety if Harris did not file a letter, or if his letter did not address the identified issues or provide a viable reason against dismissal.

Harris had also failed to attend the January 15, 2025 conference. The court warned that it may dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if he fails to attend future court conferences or comply with court orders. The defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond was stayed. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Harris permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail Harris a copy of the order.