Hampton v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.

Facts

On April 5, 1996, Hampton (P) and her niece, Cooper (P), both African-Americans, were shopping for an Easter outfit for Cooper's (P) one-year-old son in D's children's department in Overland Park, Kansas. Ps had four children with them: Cooper's (P) son, Ms. Hampton's (P) eight-month-old and seven-year-old daughters, and her elder daughter's friend. Shortly after they entered the store, Wilson, a D's security officer, noticed them. He observed them for more than fifteen minutes. He paid close attention to the party because they had a stroller with them, because Cooper (P) had a rolled-up dark cloth item in her hand, and because she kept looking up at the ceiling and glancing around as if to check to see if she was being watched. Wilson asked fellow employee Pam Fitzgerel to continue the surveillance in a fitting room in the children's department, where Ps were trying clothing on Cooper's (P) one-year-old son. Fitzgerel testified that Cooper (P) was holding a rolled-up cloth item in the fitting room; that she later saw an item under Cooper's (P) jacket; and that, believing the item to be store merchandise, she contacted Wilson and told him that she was positive that Cooper had put something under her coat. Hampton (P) proceeded to purchase an outfit for Cooper's (P) son. The sales associate gave Ps each a coupon that was redeemable at the fragrance counter for cologne samples. The group then proceeded on to the fragrance counter, to redeem their fragrance coupons. While at the counter redeeming their coupons and talking with fragrance consultant Betty Chouteau, Wilson interrupted them. Wilson stated that 'the . . . black female had been observed placing something in her coat.' He asked to look inside the Dillard's bag carried by Hampton (P), took the bag, and emptied the contents on the fragrance counter. Wilson checked the items against the receipt and determined that they corresponded. Chouteau testified that she perceived it to be 'a rather embarrassing situation' for the women. Hampton (P) became visibly upset and told Wilson that, as a regular customer of D's, she did not appreciate being accused of shoplifting and that she did not deserve to be treated this way. Wilson told her to calm down or he would call the Overland Park police and have her removed from the store. Hampton (P) asked Wilson his name and the location of the customer service counter. She then proceeded to the customer service counter and had no more contact with Wilson. The encounter lasted approximately five minutes. Ps subsequently filed suit against D, alleging false imprisonment under Kansas law and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Ps based their § 1981 claims on the observation and detention by Wilson and on the store's disparate security practices of 'arresting or detaining African-American shoppers at a significantly greater rate than it arrests or detains white shoppers.' D moved for summary judgment on both claims. The only claim the court allowed was for the § 1981 claim that D interfered with Ps' ability to redeem the perfume sample. The court ordered Cooper (P) to show cause why her claims should survive in the absence of any purchase made by her. The court rejected Cooper's (P) contention that, as a third-party beneficiary of the sale to Hampton (P), her § 1981 claim should survive. Section 1981 jurisprudence requires that the action interfered with must be based on a contract. The jury was to determine whether the fragrance sample was a benefit of Hampton's (P) purchase from D and whether D intentionally interfered with the redemption of the coupon. If the jury found the coupon was a benefit of purchase and that D intentionally interfered, it would proceed to phase two, in which it would determine whether the store's intentional interference was racially motivated. The jury awarded Hampton (P) $56,000 in compensatory damages and $1.1 million in punitive damages. D appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.