8th Circuit rejects discrimination suit against owner of Woodbury hotel

Listen to this article

A divided 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found in favor of a hotel in a racial bias suit. In Larry Johnson v. Schulte Hospitality Group, filed May 2, the court determined that the plaintiff did not show that the reasons for his allegedly poor treatment were pretextual.

Larry Johnson, who is a Black man, frequently stays at Marriotts. He has “silver elite” Bonvoy member status, which guests can achieve by staying 10 nights in a calendar year. On June 4, 2020, Johnson stayed at the Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury hotel, which, like Marriott hotels, operates under the Schulte Hospitality umbrella.

According to Johnson, the experience was so bad that “discrimination is the probable explanation.” Johnson alleged that he was greeted in an inhospitable manner, was locked out of the main entrance, and was forced to provide proof of his Bonvoy rewards program membership during the check-in process. He also claimed that the bedding in his room was dirty and, in order to get new bedding, he had to carry the dirty bedding to the front desk himself and change his own bed. Johnson also attempted to switch rooms for the final 2½ hours of his stay, which was denied. Eventually, after complaining to the assistant manager, a white woman, about his treatment during his stay, the hotel called the police. Johnson was escorted out of the hotel.

The Sheraton did give Johnson a full refund for his stay. But it claimed that Johnson’s treatment was a result of the hotel responding to local social protests and the COVID-19 pandemic. It explained that the check-in procedures changed from prior times in response to the pandemic. Furthermore, the hotel reduced its custodial staff and discontinued daily housekeeping as part of its “ad hoc policies in response to an extraordinary, evolving medical and regulatory landscape.”

Johnson, however, argued that the hotel’s reasons were pretextual. He sued Schulte Hospitality Group, owner of Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury Hotel, alleging racial discrimination and unfair reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Jordan Kushner, of the Law Office of Jordan S. Kushner, who represented Johnson, said that “the behavior was so at variance with what would be expected” that racial discrimination had to be the explanation. “A reasonable juror could conclude that, because this behavior was so outrageous and far from what you would expect from a premium hotel, that Mr. Johnson was discriminated against because of his race, and, that when he complained about it, he suffered unlawful reprisal and retaliation,” asserted Kushner.

Kushner claimed that ad hoc COVID-19 policies were not a reasonable explanation for Johnson’s treatment. “Some of what they did to him had nothing to do with the COVID situation,” Kushner asserted. “Certainly, being rudely greeted and being told you had to show you were a member of the hotel to check in … had nothing to do with COVID.”

There was little evidence for the court to review that showed how Johnson’s removal from the hotel stemmed from Johnson’s complaint to the assistant manager about alleged racial discrimination. There was a video recording of Johnson’s confrontation with the assistant manager; however, there was no audio. In the video, Johnson’s hand and arm movements getting increasingly stronger and wider. The assistant manager said that she felt threatened, and she was the only employee at the front desk.

Megan McCormick, attorney at Wilson Elser, represented Schulte. “It’s undisputed that this woman was working alone in this hotel. She has a patron who complains of discrimination. She apologizes … she tries to placate him in any way that she can,” argued McCormick. “He refuses, and she begins to get uncomfortable when he becomes agitated.”

The court did consider the temporal proximity of his removal to his complaint. However, it found that “Johnson’s behavior constituted intervening conduct that negated an inference of a causal connection.” It affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment on the MHRA unfair reprisal claim. “Johnson fails to show that Hotel called the police to escort him out of the Hotel because of his complaint of discrimination,” the court wrote.

Judge Jane Kelly concurred in part and dissented in part. While she agreed with the majority that the race discrimination claims fail at the pretext stage, she maintained that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the unfair reprisal and retaliation claims.

“Because Johnson complained of racial discrimination regarding the service he received and there is no dispute that the Hotel took an adverse action by ejecting him before the end of his stay, Johnson has satisfied the first and second elements of his prima facie case, respectively,” Kelly wrote.

She also argued that Johnson satisfied the third element, the causal connection.

“Here, the assistant manager called the police to remove Johnson from the Hotel about seven minutes after Johnson raised his complaints of racial discrimination,” Kelly affirmed. She also noted that the assistant manager “admitted she felt harassed and uncomfortable because Johnson ‘wouldn’t stop’ complaining about his perceived mistreatment even though she repeatedly apologized.”

However, the assistant manager had only previously called the police on guests who broke the law, damaged property, or would not pay.

Kelly also contested the court’s conclusions about the video recording of Johnson’s confrontation of the assistant manager.

“While the assistant manager testified that Johnson’s body language became ‘aggressive,’ Johnson remained at a distance from her during the conversation, and he ‘never approached’ the area behind the desk where she stood,” Kelly wrote. “In my view, the audio-less video does not portray a scene from which there is only one conclusion a viewer could reach about Johnson’s ‘behavior.’”

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.