Joshua Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
This text of Joshua Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. (Joshua Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1915 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1860
JOSHUA BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., d/b/a Whole Foods at Sharon Square,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 22-1915
Plaintiff - Appellee,
WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., d/b/a Whole Foods at Sharon Square,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00401-MOC-DCK)
Submitted: September 26, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1915 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 6
Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Preston O. Odom, III, JAMES, MCELROY & DIEHL P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. John Michael Durnovich, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Melody H. Demasi, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1915 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Brown appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in favor of Whole
Foods Market Group, Inc. (“Whole Foods”), following a jury trial on Brown’s claim of
racial discrimination. Brown originally filed suit in North Carolina state court, alleging
that the actions of a Whole Foods employee—who called the police about Brown, a Black
man—amounted to racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and intentional infliction
of emotional distress (“IIED”) under North Carolina law. Whole Foods removed the action
to the district court, and the court granted summary judgment to Whole Foods on Brown’s
IIED claim. Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial on Brown’s § 1981 claim, and the jury
returned a verdict in Whole Foods’ favor. On appeal, Brown argues that the court erred in
granting summary judgment to Whole Foods on his IIED claim, denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59 motion for a new trial, and admitting certain testimony. Finding no error, we affirm. *
We first address Brown’s challenge to the district court’s summary judgment ruling.
“We review de novo a district court’s award of summary judgment, viewing the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Chapman v. Oakland Living Ctr., Inc.,
48 F.4th 222, 228 (4th Cir. 2022). “Summary judgment is appropriate only when ‘the
* Whole Foods noted a cross-appeal, but it acknowledges in its response brief that the arguments it raises in its cross-appeal are offered solely as an alternative basis for affirming the district court’s judgment. In light of our decision to affirm, we decline to reach the merits of Whole Foods’ cross-appeal. See Hartman v. Duffey, 19 F.3d 1459, 1465-66 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (noting appellate courts decline to consider protective cross- appeals unless “the main appeal results in modification of the judgment”).
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1915 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 4 of 6
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
To succeed on his claim of IIED under North Carolina law, Brown was required to
prove “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant, (2) which is intended to cause
and does cause (3) severe emotional distress to another.” Turner v. Thomas, 794 S.E.2d
439, 446 (N.C. 2016) (cleaned up). “[E]xtreme and outrageous conduct is that which
exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated by society . . . and is regarded as atrocious.” Id.
(cleaned up). Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Brown, a Whole Foods
employee suspected Brown of shoplifting based on his race and called the police.
However, the employee’s encounter with Brown was calm and polite. Further, he
accurately informed the police that, although he was worried Brown would leave without
paying for his food, Brown had not actually stolen anything. And after the police resolved
the situation and left the store, the employee did not pursue the matter further. Thus,
viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Brown, the employee’s motivations may
have been morally suspect, but his actions were not so atrocious as to be “utterly intolerable
in a civilized community.” Id. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment to Whole Foods on Brown’s IIED claim.
Turning to the district court’s denial of Brown’s motion for a new trial, we review
the court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co., 997 F.3d 526,
535 (4th Cir. 2021). “A district court may grant a new trial only if the verdict: (1) is against
the clear weight of the evidence; (2) is based upon false evidence; or (3) will result in a
miscarriage of justice.” EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 145 (4th Cir. 2017).
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1915 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 5 of 6
On appeal, Brown argues that the jury’s verdict is internally contradictory and
inconsistent with the applicable law. In particular, he asserts that the jury’s finding that he
was treated differently than similarly situated White customers cannot be reconciled with
its ultimate conclusion that his race was not the “but for” cause of the differential treatment.
However, in order to prevail upon a § 1981 claim of race-based discrimination, a plaintiff
must prove more than differential treatment. Rather, the plaintiff must “ultimately prove
that, but for race, [he] would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.”
Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1019 (2020).
The verdict was both consistent with this legal principle and internally consistent, as it
reflected that the jury found that Brown proved differential treatment but failed to meet the
causation element of his claim. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying
Brown’s motion for a new trial.
Lastly, Brown challenges the district court’s admission of the Whole Foods
employee’s testimony that other store employees told him that Brown had previously
shoplifted from the store. Brown contends that this testimony was inadmissible hearsay.
However, this testimony was offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show
the employee’s state of mind and motive for approaching Brown and calling the police.
Therefore, the testimony was not hearsay, and the court did not err in admitting the
statements. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) (defining hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered
“to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement”); United States v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Joshua Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-brown-v-whole-foods-market-group-inc-ca4-2023.