Even Liberal Construction of Complaint Can't Save Claim of "Outrage"
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Brackens v. Tex. Roadhouse in Wichita, No. 06-50736, slip op. (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2007), affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims against a restaurant chain for breach of contract, unprofessional conduct, and claims under Title VII, even though the district court liberally construed the pro se plaintiff’s complaint. Brackens, an African-American male, was dining at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Wichita, Kansas when the facility played Gretchen Wilson’s “Redneck Woman” over the speaker system, prompting its employees to dance to it. Brackens sued and asserted that the song’s use of the term “redneck” was racially offensive to him because as a black man, he could never be a “redneck.” Further, Brackens asserted that the restaurant had breached an implied contract created when he and his family ordered their meal, and that the restaurant engaged in unprofessional conduct.
The court affirmed dismissal of the Title VII claim and first pointed out that Title VII applied only to employment discrimination claims. Therefore, the district court had liberally and correctly re-classified the claim as one of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. However, the court found that the statute only requires that all patrons be admitted without discrimination, and does not require places of public accommodation to cater to the musical tastes of its patrons. Since Brackens was not an employee of the restaurant, his claims failed.
The court also affirmed the dismissal of Brackens’ breach of contract claim and noted that the district court had correctly found that there was a valid contract between the parties. According to the court, the restaurant never assented to an obligation to refrain from playing the song during Brackens meal.
Finally, the court affirmed dismissal of the claim for unprofessional conduct. Liberally construing the claim to be one of “outrage” under Kansas law, the court found that the requirements of such a claim were not met because the facts alleged, even if true, were not so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond the bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
For more information, please contact Jason Fortenberry.
