___________ No. 95-3808

___________ C. G. McFarland, individually * and as parent and natural * guardian of T.W., a minor, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. First Union Management, Inc., * a foreign corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 11, 1996 Filed: August 28, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, LAY, and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

C.G. McFa rland filed suit on behalf of her minor son, T.W., against First Union Management, Inc., which operates the Crossroads Shopping Cente r Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. T.W., an African-American male, allege s First Union discriminated against him in violati on of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363.01-.20 (1994), b y banning h im from the mall's premises for a year because of his rac e following an incident of attempted theft by a ca ucasian juvenile, J.V., on March 16 , 1994. T.W. also alleges First Union's employees falsel y imprisoned him at that time. The district court, the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, granted summary judgment to the defendant. McFarland appeals. We affirm.
On March 16, 1994, employees of Scheel's Sport Shop, located

### -2-

inthe mall, requested First Union's security officials to investigate a suspect, J.V., for shoplifting. J.V. was observ ed peeling the sticker off a low-priced cap and putting it onto a regular-priced cap. He then went to the cashier to pay for the cap he had taken. Host Dep. at 20-21. T.W. , who had come to the mall with J.V., waited for J.V. outside the store
. T.W. inquired of an official what J.V. had done. The official asked if he was with J.V. and, when T.W. said yes, the offic ial told T.W. to come with him. The two young m en were questioned by the security officials. Based upon the investigation, First Union requested the young men to sig n documents banning them from the mall. T.W. was banned for one year due to the alleged theft by swindle. J.V. was banned for the same reason for a period of eighteen months.
There is no direct evidence of intentional discrimination in thi s case. Furthermore, assuming T.W. has produced evidence to establish a prim a facie case of racial discrimination, we find the defendant ha s produced a legitimate , nondiscriminatory reason for banning T.W. from the mall, i.e., its reaso nable belief as a matter of law that T.W. was guilty of theft. As the dis trict court found, the evidence on the record is not disputed that J.V. told the security officers as follows: I told the security guard about [T.W.] having sciss ors with him that he was using to remove tags at the mall and that he ha d beenbragging about stealing stuff that day, including a pair of Reebo ks. [T.W.] denied that he was using the scissors t o steal things, but I knew that was not true.
J.V. Aff. at ¶ 11. On the basis of J.V's statem ent and the fact that T.W. was found in possession of scissors, the defendant urges that the reason for banning T.W. from the mall was based upon a non-discriminatory reason. Although T.W.'s depos ition states that he did not steal anything from the store, that he told s ecurity officials he did not take anything, and that he heard J.V. tell the

### The record contains various allegations that the securit y 1 

### offici als made an unspecified racial slur against T.W.; tha t securityofficials often harassed young people on the basis o f their race, clothing, and hairstyles; that the security officials entered a store without an inv itation from that store to accuse an African-American woman of shoplifting; and that the defendan t banned a disproportionate number of African-Americans compared to Min nesota's population at large. We have carefully reviewed th e overall record and find that this evidence is either to o genera lized or otherwise inadmissible to support an inference o f intentional racial discrimination in this case. -3- securityofficers that neither T.W. nor he had ever stolen any property, the fact remains that J.V.'s affidavit in regards to what he told th e security guards about T.W. is not disputed on th e summary judgment record. As the district court points out, T.W.'s caucasian companion, J.V., wa s banned for a longer p eriod of time than T.W. and there is no evidence the defenda nt rescinded the ban against J.V. or knowingly allowed J.V. t o vio late the ban. We further find no evidence that the defendant' s reasonable belief in T.W.'s guilt was pretext for racial discrimination. T.W. acknowledged in his deposition that he had not previously bee n harassed by the secur ity officials and that he initiated contact with the officials in this case. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the § 1981 claim. 1 Minnesota Human Rights Act
The Minnesota Human Rights Act requires plaintiffs claimin g discri mination "to present proof of discriminatory motive" in the sam e manne r as plaintiffs under federal anti-discrimination laws. E.g. , Sigurdson v. Isanti County , 386 N.W.2d 715, 720 (Minn. 1986). Thus, w e affirmthe grant of summary judgment to the defendant on T.W.'s stat e discrimination claim for the reasons given above. False Imprisonment Minn. Stat. § 629.366 provides that a person may be detained

### -4-

by a "merchant or merchant's employee" for up to one hour "if the merchant or employ ee has reasonable cause to believe . . . that the person ha s taken, or is taking, an article of value without paying for it, from the possession of the mer chant in the merchant's place of business[.]" Minn. Stat. § 629.366, subd. 1(a)(1), (c). The district court found it undisputed, based upon T.W.'s depos ition, that he was detained in the security room for forty-five minutes an d overall for no more than one hour. Thus, the co urt held the defendant was entitl ed to immunity against T.W.'s false imprisonment claim under th e Minnesota statute. We agree.

For the reasons stated, the grant of summary judgment to th e defendant is AFFIRMED.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.