No. 22-1613 ___________________________

Larry Johnson

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc.

Defendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: February 15, 2023 Filed: May 2, 2023 ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

After an overnight stay at the Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury Hotel, Larry Johnson sued the Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc. for discrimination and unfair reprisal. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to the Hotel because it

1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. provided unrebutted, non-pretextual justifications for its treatment of Johnson, and he did not show a causal link between his complaint of discrimination and the Hotel’s adverse actions. Johnson appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.

Larry Johnson stayed at the Sheraton St. Paul Woodbury Hotel on June 4, 2020. He sued for violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.11, subd. 1(a); 363A.15; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging discrimination because of his race and unlawful reprisal. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hotel.

Johnson appeals, alleging (i) discrimination in violation of the MHRA, (ii) reprisal for complaining about the discrimination in violation of the MHRA, (iii) discrimination in violation of § 1981, and (iv) retaliation for complaining about the discrimination in violation of § 1981. “This court reviews de novo a grant of summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper ‘if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).

II.

Johnson claims discrimination on account of his race, in violation of the MHRA. “It is an unfair discriminatory practice . . . to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 363A.11, subd. 1(a)(1) (2022). Minnesota courts use the McDonnell- Douglas framework to assess MHRA claims. See Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 441 (Minn. 1983), citing McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. -2- Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The McDonnell-Douglas framework “consists of a prima facie case, an answer, and a rebuttal.” Id. “In the public-accommodations context, the elements of a prima facie case are: (1) the plaintiffs are members of a protected class; (2) the defendant discriminated against plaintiffs regarding the availability of its facility; and (3) the discrimination was because of plaintiffs’ membership in the protected class.” Monson v. Rochester Athl. Club, 759 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Minn. App. 2009), citing Potter v. LaSalle Sports & Health Club, 368 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Minn. App. 1985).

If the party establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the second part of the McDonnell-Douglas framework applies, and the burden shifts to the place of public accommodation to articulate a legitimate, nondi