## Facts

- Paula Darlene Hampton, an African-American customer, shopped at a Dillard’s store with her niece, Demetria Cooper.
- Hampton made a purchase and received a coupon entitling her to a free cologne sample as part of a store promotion.
- When Hampton attempted to redeem the coupon at the fragrance counter, a Dillard’s security guard placed Hampton and Cooper under surveillance and accused them of shoplifting.
- Dillard’s quickly determined the women were innocent, but the confrontation disrupted Hampton’s attempt to obtain the free sample.
- Evidence indicated Dillard’s security practices included recording customers’ race in incident reports and that African-American customers were disproportionately surveilled and stopped.
- A jury found that the free sample was a benefit or privilege of Hampton’s purchase, that Dillard’s intentionally interfered with her ability to obtain it, and that race was a motivating factor; the jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the free cologne sample offered through the coupon was a “benefit or privilege” of a contractual relationship protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
2. Whether Dillard’s intentionally interfered with Hampton’s ability to enjoy that contractual benefit.
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence that race was a motivating factor in the interference, satisfying § 1981’s intentional discrimination requirement.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Dillard’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law and upheld the jury verdict.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the coupon created a contractual benefit protected by § 1981.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find intentional interference when security accused Hampton of shoplifting as she attempted to redeem the coupon.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find racial motivation, including race-coded incident reporting and disproportionate targeting of African-American customers.
- Applying de novo review of the Rule 50 denial, the court viewed evidence and inferences in Hampton’s favor and declined to reweigh credibility or facts resolved by the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1981 protects not only contract formation but also the enjoyment of “benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions” of a contractual relationship.
- A retailer’s promotional offer accepted by a customer may constitute a contractual benefit covered by § 1981 when the customer satisfies the stated conditions.
- § 1981 requires intentional discrimination; proof may be circumstantial and may include evidence of differential security practices and race-coded documentation supporting an inference of a pretextual stop.
- Judgment as a matter of law after a jury verdict is appropriate only when the evidence permits but one reasonable conclusion; appellate review does not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 where a jury reasonably found that a store’s security stop, motivated in part by race, intentionally interfered with an African-American customer’s contractual right to receive a promotional free-sample benefit.


Hampton v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 247 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2001)