Salisbury man racially discriminated against while shopping at Ollie’s, 4th Circuit rules

A Salisbury man who was the target of racial slurs by an Ollie’s Bargain Outlet employee while shopping in the store was denied the opportunity to purchase items based on his race, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held.

In a published opinion written by Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin filed last month, the 4th Circuit found Alexis Guerrero sufficiently alleged that Ollie’s Bargain Outlet intended to discriminate against him on the basis of race and that the discrimination interfered with his contractual interest as a customer of the store.

The lawsuit comes after Guerrero, a Black Dominican-American, encountered a white Ollie’s employee who displayed a knife and began jabbing the seven-inch blade toward Guerrero when he tried to remove a flowerpot for purchasing. According to the opinion, the employee shouted racial slurs at Guerrero, including “Go back to your country.” Guerrero left the store without purchasing any flowerpots.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Ollie’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that Guerrero did not claim that Ollie’s prevented him from purchasing a flowerpot. The district court noted that he voluntarily left the store without attempting to make a purchase.

Though Ollie’s argued Guerrero was merely browsing the store and therefore made no effort to form a contractual relationship with Ollie’s, the 4th Circuit disagreed, finding Guerrero “explicitly demonstrated his intent to contract with Ollie’s” when he selected the flowerpots, attempted to remove a pot from the display and told a store employee he wanted to purchase the item.

Further, the appeals court agreed that the employee’s actions and words “are more than sufficient at this stage to show Guerrero was denied the opportunity to contract for the pots based on his race.”

“If these allegations are not enough to sufficiently allege the denial of an opportunity to contract based on race, we do not know what is,” the 4th Circuit wrote.

Robin Cockey, counsel for Guerrero, said he was pleased with the outcome of Guerrero’s case, which is now headed back to the district court.

“I was delighted that Mr. Guerrero was vindicated,” Cockey said in a phone call Wednesday. “It’s a shame that we still need a Reconstruction-era statute to ensure that African Americans can do something as mundane as shopping, but we do, apparently, and the 4th Circuit has made that crystal clear.”

Counsel for Ollie’s Bargain Outlet did not immediately return The Daily Record’s request for comment.

Cockey said the opinion brings clarity to a statute that is at times invoked in employment disputes.

“The opinion makes it clear that merchants who don’t treat African Americans as equal participants in what goes on at the store, merchants who discriminate against African Americans are answerable in the same way that employers who discriminate against African American employees are answerable,” Cockey said.