Judge Andrea Benjamin, who was nominated by President Biden to the Fourth Circuit court of appeals, wrote a unanimous decision that reversed a lower court and allowed a Black man to proceed with a complaint contending that he was discriminated against when he tried to make a purchase from an outlet store. The August 2024 decision was in Guerrero v Ollie’s Bargain Outlet Inc.
What happened in this case?
According to the complaint he later filed, Alexis Guerrero sought to purchase a set of matching flowerpots when he was shopping with his sister at an Ollie’s Bargain Outlet in Salisbury, Maryland. Guerrero is a Black man born in the Dominican Republic. They found one pot they were interested in, and saw a matching pot on a pallet being pushed by a white store employee, Richard Murray. Guerrero sought to remove the pot, but was stopped by Murray.
In fact, Murray brandished a knife with a seven-inch blade and began “jabbing” it towards Guerrero, telling him to move away. Guerrero waited for Murray to unwrap the pots but Murray became enraged and shouted a racial epithet at Guerrero, screaming “Go back to your f***ing country.”
Guerrero went to a manager to complain but they soon heard a scream as Murray lunged at Guerrero’s sister with his knife and continued to shout racial epithets. Other employees managed to separate Murray from the couple and called the police, but Murray sped away in his car. Upset by the incidents, Guerrero and his sister left the store.
Guerrero sued the outlet under 42 USC 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in the making of contracts. He maintained that he had wanted to purchase matching flower pots but that Murray had “interfered with his right to contract” on the basis of race. The district court, however, dismissed the case as a matter of law, asserting that Guerrero “failed to allege that he was denied the opportunity” to contract for goods that was “afforded to white customers.” Guerrero appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
How Did Judge Benjamin and the Fourth Circuit Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Benjamin wrote a unanimous opinion revering the lower court and ruled that Guerrero should be permitted to go forward with his discrimination lawsuit. She pointed out that it was “uncontested” that the store “intended to discriminate” against Guerrero on the basis of race when its white employee “threatened him” with “racial slurs and physical violence as he shopped for flowerpots.” The issue on appeal, Benjamin continued, was whether he had a “contractual interest that was affected by the alleged discrimination.”
Based on a careful review of the complaint and relevant case law, Judge Benjamin concluded that the answer was yes. Guerrero had clearly shown an “intent to purchase” when he was interfered with by Murray and continued to “demonstrate his intent to contract.” She wrote that the complaint “plainly” shows that Murray “prevented [Guerrero] from making his purchase, all while yelling racial slurs and threatening physical violence against him,” She concluded that the complaint clearly states a “plausible race discrimination claim” and should be permitted to proceed in the court below.
Judge Benjamin’s opinion is obviously important to Alexis Guerrero and his effort to get justice for the racial discrimination he suffered. It also provides an important precedent that may be useful in other discrimination cases, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, Virginia ,West Virginia, and North and South Carolina. The ruling also provides an illustration of the importance of confirming fair-minded judges to our nation’s federal courts.