Opinion ID: 2977994
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: district court opinion and order

Text: The District Court began its analysis by holding that, because the plaintiffs offered no direct evidence of discrimination, their claims were subject to the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), as modified for § 1981 commercial establishment claims by Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862 (6th 1 Cir. 2001). Under this framework, to state a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) they belonged to a protected class; (2) they sought to make a contract for services ordinarily provided by the defendant; and (3) they were denied the right to enter into a contract for such services while similarly situated persons outside the protected class were not, or they were treated in such a hostile manner that a reasonable person would find it objectively discriminatory. Id. at 872. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs met the first two requirements. As to the third requirement, the District Court found that the plaintiffs did not show differing treatment from similarly situated non-protected couples. Keck, 563 F. Supp. 2d at 740. Although it was undisputed that the Hotel hosted weddings for Caucasian couples, the District Court ruled that there was no evidence about the treatment of such couples “during the critical time,” presumably the three-month period when the plaintiffs were in contact with the Hotel. Id. (emphasis in original). Additionally, the District Court ruled that the plaintiffs could not show that the Hotel provided services in a markedly hostile manner because it did not “affirmatively refuse[]” to enter into a contract with the plaintiffs, but only “fail[ed] to follow up.” Id. 1 The plaintiffs’ Elliot-Larsen claims are analyzed under the same framework. See Sutherland v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 344 F.3d 603, 614 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). No. 08-2024 Keck v. Graham Hotel Sys., Inc. Page 7 The District Court also concluded that even if the plaintiffs had stated a prima facie case of discrimination, they could not rebut the Hotel’s nondiscriminatory explanations for the plaintiffs’ treatment based on the Hotel’s name change, its temporary lack of a Wedding Specialist, and the unscheduled nature of the plaintiffs’ visits. The plaintiffs responded that the explanations were insufficient to explain the Hotel’s behavior, and added that the experiences of the Fair Housing Center testers further suggested that the explanations were pretextual. The District Court dismissed these responses, concluding that the Hotel had undergone an “extraordinary corporate transition” and that the testers revealed only “minor inconsistencies” in treatment. Id. at 741-42.