Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"[W]e agree with two other circuits that discriminatory surveillance by a retailer is insufficient to establish interference with protected activity under sec. 1981."

"[W]e agree with two other circuits that discriminatory surveillance by a retailer is insufficient to establish interference with protected activity under sec. 1981." So holds the majority in a ruling that the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today in a lawsuit alleging race discrimination at the Dillard's department store in Columbia, Missouri.

Eleven judges participated in today's ruling. Four judges dissented in full and one judge dissented in part. The lead dissenting opinion begins, "I respectfully dissent from the majority's failure to give effect to the legislation enacted by Congress to give African Americans equal rights to contract and to purchase goods as possessed by whites."

Circuit Judge Steven M. Colloton is the author of today's majority opinion. In July 2007, he dissented in part from the original three-judge panel's opinion, which had reinstated most of the plaintiffs' claims. Judge Colloton's opinion from July 2007 began, "The principal question presented on this appeal is whether alleged discriminatory surveillance by a retail merchant, in which members of a particular racial group are watched more closely than others while shopping, constitutes a violation of the rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981." The other two judges on the original three-judge panel are among the four judges who dissented in full from today's en banc ruling.

Full post as published by How Appealing on May 12, 2009 (boomark / email).