Johnson v. Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc.

Background

Larry Johnson stayed overnight at the Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury Hotel on June 4, 2020. The hotel’s doors were locked because of the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest following George Floyd’s death. Johnson did not use the phone identified on a sign at the entrance to contact the front desk. Assistant General Manager Patty Ball opened the door, asked what he wanted, and helped him reach the reception desk.

At check-in, desk clerk Michael Spencer allegedly told Johnson that he could not check in without proving that he was a member of Marriott’s BonVoy rewards program. Johnson obtained his membership number from his car, showed it to Spencer, and was checked in. Johnson later found dirty bedding in his room. He testified that Spencer refused to move him to another room and instead gave him clean bedding to take to the room. The hotel disputed parts of this account, but for purposes of summary judgment the court assumed Johnson’s version that Spencer denied his request to change rooms.

The next morning, Johnson spoke with Ball about the events and said he believed she had profiled him. Johnson continued the discussion after Ball apologized. According to Ball, Johnson became louder and acted aggressively while she was working alone. Ball told him to leave or she would call police. Johnson refused to leave and began recording her. Ball called police, and Johnson left after officers arrived.

Johnson’s second amended complaint asserted three counts: racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; unfair reprisal under that Act; and discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in its favor rather than rely on allegations or speculation.

Minnesota Human Rights Act Discrimination Claim

The court applied the burden-shifting method commonly used for discrimination claims. Johnson had to provide evidence that he was treated differently regarding the hotel’s facilities because of his race. He identified four alleged discriminatory acts: Ball’s greeting at the entrance, Spencer’s request for proof of BonVoy membership, the refusal to move him to another room, and his removal from the hotel.

For the entrance greeting, the court found that Johnson and the Caucasian guest he identified were not similarly situated in the relevant respects. Johnson did not use the entrance phone, while the other guest called the front desk. The court also found that the hotel offered nondiscriminatory reasons for the different treatment: the doors were locked because of the pandemic and civil unrest, and Ball approached Johnson because he had not followed the posted instructions. Johnson offered no sufficient evidence that these reasons were a pretext for racial discrimination.

Regarding the BonVoy membership number, Johnson did not identify a similarly situated guest treated differently or other evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory intent. Spencer testified that entering membership information made the check-in process easier and allowed multiple transactions to be completed together. Johnson did not provide sufficient evidence that this explanation was a pretext.

Regarding the room-change request, the court considered the hotel’s reduced staffing and changed procedures during the pandemic. The evidence showed that the hotel sometimes provided clean linens instead of moving a guest, that room changes required additional labor, and that there was no written procedure governing room-change requests. Johnson did not provide sufficient evidence that the hotel’s explanation was a pretext or that it failed to follow its own procedures.

Regarding Johnson’s removal, the court assumed without deciding that he could establish the initial elements of a discrimination claim. It nevertheless found that the hotel offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: Ball testified that Johnson became increasingly aggressive and that she felt harassed and uncomfortable while working alone. The surveillance video supported her description of his increasingly animated body language. Johnson’s arguments did not provide sufficient evidence that racial discrimination, rather than his conduct, motivated the removal.

Considering the hotel’s actions together, the court held that Johnson had not presented enough evidence for a reasonable juror to find that the hotel’s stated reasons were a pretext for race discrimination. The court granted summary judgment on the Minnesota Human Rights Act discrimination claim.

Minnesota Human Rights Act Reprisal Claim

A reprisal claim requires proof that the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct, suffered an adverse action, and showed a causal connection between the two. The hotel did not dispute that Johnson’s complaints about alleged racial discrimination were protected conduct. Johnson argued that Ball retaliated by ordering him off the property and calling police minutes after his complaints.

The court held that timing alone did not establish causation because Johnson’s intervening aggressive and harassing behavior broke the causal connection. The evidence showed that Ball called police only after Johnson became visibly upset, raised his voice, and acted more aggressively. Johnson’s speculation that Ball called police because she did not want to hear his complaints was insufficient. The court granted summary judgment on the reprisal claim.

Section 1981 Claims

Section 1981 protects the equal right to make and enforce contracts. For a discrimination claim under that statute, Johnson had to show that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent and that race was the reason he lost a legally protected right. The court relied on its earlier analysis and held that Johnson had not presented enough evidence of discriminatory intent.

Section 1981 also permits retaliation claims. Johnson based his retaliation claim on Ball’s calling police and having him removed. The court held that his aggressive and harassing behavior broke the causal link between his protected complaint and Ball’s actions. The court therefore rejected both the section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims.

Disposition

Judge Ann D. Montgomery ordered that Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The court also ordered that Johnson’s second amended complaint was dismissed. The opinion did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.