Opinion ID: 2977994
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: differing treatment

Text: The parties agree that the plaintiffs’ claims rely on evidence that is subject to the tripartite, burden-shifting standard articulated by this court in Christian, 252 F.3d at 872. This burden is not intended to be “onerous,” Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); rather, it should only “eliminate[] the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the plaintiff’s treatment.” Id. at 253-54. Moreover, “the precise requirements of a prima facie case can vary depending on the context and were ‘never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.’” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (quoting Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1978)). An inference of discrimination arises where a plaintiff is deprived of services “while similarly situated persons outside the protected class were not.” Christian, 252 F.3d at 872. In the commercial establishment setting, this test “is written with the understanding that ‘the comparison will never involve precisely the same set of ... [conduct] occurring over the same period of time and under the same sets of circumstances.’” Id. at 871 (quoting in part Callwood v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc., 98 F. Supp. 2d 694, 707 (D. Md. 2000) (alterations in original)). Although the Hotel does not dispute that it regularly entered into wedding reception contracts with Caucasians, it refused to disclose whether it did so during the No. 08-2024 Keck v. Graham Hotel Sys., Inc. Page 8 operative time period in this case. During discovery, the plaintiffs requested documentation of all Hotel wedding contracts entered into between June 1 and October 31, 2004. The Hotel refused, arguing that producing such materials was “overly burdensome,” and that the request itself was “overbroad.” This District Court erred in its conclusion that the plaintiffs had not sought these records. In finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the differing treatment requirement, it commented that “Plaintiffs could have, but did not, request from Defendant the names of couples who booked the [Hotel] for their receptions during the relevant time period and attempt to determine the race of each couple and the circumstances surrounding their interactions with Defendant.” Keck, 563 F. Supp. 2d at 739 n.8. The Hotel’s response is not well taken. Such documents are crucial to the plaintiffs’ case. The refusal may lead to an adverse inference about the nature of such evidence. See, e.g., Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“[A] party’s refusal to . . . produce evidence in civil suits creates a presumption of an intent to withhold damaging information that is material to the litigation.”); Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 557 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (“Where one party wrongfully denies another the evidence necessary to establish a fact in dispute, the court must draw the strongest allowable inferences in favor of the aggrieved party.”); Cecil Corley Motor Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 380 F. Supp. 819, 859 (M.D. Tenn. 1974) (“When a litigant . . . withholds records or documents while litigation is pending . . . the strongest inferences may be drawn against that party which the opposing evidence in the record permits.”). Thus the record is unclear about the wedding contracts made during the relevant time period. One form shows that fifteen weddings were “booked” between July and August, 2004, but at oral argument, the Hotel claimed that “booking” meant the issuance of a ten-day hold, not an actual reception contract. The meaning is uncertain. Another document lists the Hotel’s wedding receptions for the year 2005 and, in several cases, includes the “date booked.” Two of these weddings (Turpin/Balbach and Buter/Kruger) No. 08-2024 Keck v. Graham Hotel Sys., Inc. Page 9 were “booked” on September 20, 2004, during which time the plaintiffs still had a hold on their desired date, but the races of these couples is unknown. From these documents, it is impossible to determine whether the plaintiffs were denied a wedding contract while similarly situated Caucasians were not. Answering this question requires only that the Hotel provide a list of people (if any) who signed wedding contracts between June 2004, and September 21, 2004, from which the plaintiffs could then determine if any were Caucasian. The Hotel refused to turn over the relevant documents and information. Indeed, when pressed on the subject at oral argument, counsel for the Hotel was unable to state whether such documents existed.