Patel v. Holley House Motels
1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8216, 483 F. Supp. 374 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fair Housing Act's prohibition against discrimination in the sale of a "dwelling" does not apply to transient public accommodations like motels. Separately, claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 must be based on racial discrimination and require proof of discriminatory intent; discrimination based solely on national origin is not cognizable under these statutes.
Facts:
- Holley and Sue Midgley, owners of the Palms Motel, decided to sell the business via an installment contract, making the future success of the motel crucial to their retirement income.
- Based on comments from repeat customers, the Midgleys formed a belief that people of Indian origin were poor motel managers and would not be successful due to unfamiliarity with local customs.
- The Midgleys listed the motel for sale and instructed their real estate agent, Pat Flynn, that they did not want to sell to "Indians or foreigners," subsequently rejecting several prospective buyers of Indian origin.
- The Karst family, who are white American citizens, made a written offer to purchase the motel as part of a partnership with the Patel family, who are dark-skinned natives of India.
- The Karsts intentionally concealed the Patels' involvement in the purchase from the Midgleys.
- During final negotiations, the Midgleys discovered the Patels' involvement when they saw Bindu H. Patel's name on a draft stock purchase agreement.
- Upon learning that individuals of Indian origin were involved, the Midgleys immediately terminated the deal, stating they had been deceived and reiterating they would not sell to "Indians."
Procedural Posture:
- Harshad Patel, Bindu Patel, and the Karst family (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the Midgleys and Holley House Motels (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1982).
- The defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of the federal claims.
- The defendants argued that the Fair Housing Act does not apply to a motel and that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for racial discrimination under §§ 1981 and 1982.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do federal civil rights statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 prohibit discrimination based solely on national origin, where the plaintiffs fail to provide evidence that race or color was a motivating factor in the defendant's refusal to sell property?
Opinions:
Majority - Hand, District Judge
No. Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 are limited to racial discrimination and do not extend to discrimination based solely on national origin. The court first addressed the Fair Housing Act claim, holding that the Act does not apply because the Palms Motel is a transient public accommodation, not a "dwelling" as defined by the statute. The court defined a dwelling as a place intended for use as a residence, which a motel for travelers is not. Turning to the §§ 1981 and 1982 claims, the court, citing Supreme Court precedent like Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., found that these statutes were enacted to prohibit racial discrimination exclusively. While a dark-skinned person of Indian origin could potentially bring a successful claim by proving that race or color was a factor, the plaintiffs in this case failed to produce any such evidence. The record overwhelmingly showed that the Midgleys' motivation was their economic concern that "foreigners," specifically persons of Indian origin, lacked familiarity with local customs and would mismanage the motel. This constitutes discrimination based on national origin and cultural stereotypes, not race, and is therefore not actionable under §§ 1981 and 1982.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets the scope of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, drawing a sharp line between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on national origin. It establishes that plaintiffs cannot simply equate their ethnic or ancestral background with race to state a claim under these statutes. The ruling places a significant evidentiary burden on individuals from ethnic groups that may not fit neatly into traditional American racial categories, requiring them to produce specific proof of racial animus rather than animus based on cultural or national stereotypes. While later Supreme Court decisions would broaden the understanding of "race" under § 1981 to include ancestry and ethnic characteristics, this case exemplifies a narrower, more literal interpretation that significantly impacts the litigation strategy for such claims.
Unlock the full brief for Patel v. Holley House Motels