___________

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a foreign corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]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. McFarland filed suit on behalf of her minor son, T.W., against

First Union Management, Inc., which operates the Crossroads Shopping Center

Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. T.W., an African-American male, alleges

First Union discriminated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and

the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363.01-.20 (1994), by

banning him from the mall's premises for a year because of his race

following an incident of attempted theft by a caucasian juvenile, J.V., on

March 16, 1994. T.W. also alleges First Union's employees falsely

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-

in the mall, requested First Union's security officials to investigate a

suspect, J.V., for shoplifting. J.V. was observed 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 official told T.W. to come with

him. The two young men were questioned by the security officials. Based

upon the investigation, First Union requested the young men to sign

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 this

case. Furthermore, assuming T.W. has produced evidence to establish a

prima facie case of racial discrimination, we find the defendant has

produced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for banning T.W. from the

mall, i.e., its reasonable belief as a matter of law that T.W. was guilty

of theft. As the district 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 scissors with him

that he was using to remove tags at the mall and that he had

been bragging about stealing stuff that day, including a pair

of Reeboks. [T.W.] denied that he was using the scissors to

steal things, but I knew that was not true.

J.V. Aff. at ¶ 11. On the basis of J.V's statement 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 deposition states that he did not steal anything from the

store, that he told security officials he did not take anything, and that

he heard J.V. tell the
 The record contains various allegations that the security

1

officials made an unspecified racial slur against T.W.; that

security officials often harassed young people on the basis of

their race, clothing, and hairstyles; that the security officials

entered a store without an invitation from that store to accuse an

African-American woman of shoplifting; and that the defendant

banned a disproportionate number of African-Americans compared to

Minnesota's population at large. We have carefully reviewed the

overall record and find that this evidence is either too

generalized or otherwise inadmissible to support an inference of

intentional racial discrimination in this case.

-3-

security officers 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 the

security guards about T.W. is not disputed on the summary judgment record.

As the district court points out, T.W.'s caucasian companion, J.V., was

banned for a longer period of time than T.W. and there is no evidence the

defendant rescinded the ban against J.V. or knowingly allowed J.V. to

violate 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 been

harassed by the security 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 claiming

discrimination "to present proof of discriminatory motive" in the same

manner as plaintiffs under federal anti-discrimination laws. E.g.,

Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715, 720 (Minn. 1986). Thus, we

affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on T.W.'s state

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 employee has reasonable cause to believe . . . that the person has

taken, or is taking, an article of value without paying for it, from the

possession of the merchant 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 deposition,

that he was detained in the security room for forty-five minutes and

overall for no more than one hour. Thus, the court held the defendant was

entitled to immunity against T.W.'s false imprisonment claim under the

Minnesota statute. We agree.

For the reasons stated, the grant of summary judgment to the

defendant is AFFIRMED.

A true copy.

Attest:

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