Plaintiffs Jason Benda and Dr. Yuan Yuan Xie sued defendants Sadler Rentals, LLC and Timothy Sadler in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and breach of contract. Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Plaintiffs Jason Benda and Dr. Yuan Yuan Xie are husband and wife residing in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Dr. Xie was born in China, immigrated to the United States, and is of Chinese ethnic descent. Defendant Timothy Sadler is the managing member of Sadler Rentals, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company owning property in Cape Girardeau County. Mr. Sadler is Caucasian.
The Bendas attempted to purchase an undeveloped lot (the Deerwood Lot) from Sadler Rentals. When Mr. Sadler was unwilling to negotiate with Mr. Benda, Mr. Benda used a Caucasian “straw purchaser” to enter into an agreement with Mr. Sadler for the purchase of the lot at a price of $100,000. Mr. Sadler refused to close on the sale when he discovered the Bendas were providing the funds for the purchase. After subsequent negotiations, the Bendas ultimately purchased the Deerwood Lot from Defendants at a price of $130,000.
There was no evidence that Mr. Sadler and Dr. Xie ever met or that Defendants knew Dr. Xie’s ethnicity at the time they began negotiating the sale of the Deerwood Lot. Mr. Sadler testified that he first learned of Dr. Xie’s race when Mr. Benda accused him of racial discrimination in a September 13, 2022 email.
Legal Analysis
Racial Discrimination Claim: The court analyzed the racial discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 1981 because they did not produce any evidence of intentional racial discrimination.
The court noted that there was no probative evidence that Mr. Sadler knew Dr. Xie’s ethnicity at the time of the initial negotiations. The court found Mr. Benda’s statements suggesting Mr. Sadler knew Dr. Xie’s ethnicity to be speculative and insufficient to establish knowledge.
The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants’ intent to discriminate was shown by the difference in sale price between the initial offer to the straw purchaser and the final sale to the Bendas. The court noted that a crucial fact distinguished the two situations: Mr. Sadler became aware of the attempted deception through the use of a straw purchaser.
Even if Plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case, the court found that Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendants’ non-discriminatory reason for the price increase (feeling deceived by the straw purchase attempt) was pretext for discrimination.
Breach of Contract Claim: The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim after granting summary judgment on the federal discrimination claim.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the racial discrimination claim and dismissed the breach of contract claim without prejudice.
Schrag on Law 