## Facts

- Alfreda and Devon Keck, an African-American couple, sought to contract for banquet space for an October 2005 wedding reception at a hotel operated by Graham Hotel Systems, Inc.
- The hotel rented wedding-reception space through a designated “Wedding Specialist” and generally required a $12,000 food-and-beverage minimum and a $1,200 deposit.
- Beginning in June 2004, the Kecks made repeated efforts to secure a contract, including in-person visits, phone calls, and offers to pay the required deposit, but did not receive a contract or firm commitment.
- After about three months without success, the Kecks booked another venue and later complained to a local civil-rights organization.
- The organization conducted four “tester” inquiries between October 2004 and August 2005 comparing how the hotel handled wedding inquiries from white and Black prospective customers; three of the four tests indicated differential treatment associated with race.
- The hotel attributed its failure to complete a contract to operational disruption during a franchise/name change and a brief gap between wedding-specialist employees in August 2004.
- The Kecks sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Michigan’s Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act, alleging race-based interference with their attempt to contract.
- In discovery, the Kecks sought production of wedding reception contracts from the relevant period to obtain comparative evidence; the hotel refused, and the district court denied the request.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the hotel; the Kecks appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery of the hotel’s wedding reception contracts sought as comparative evidence.
2. Whether the record, including the Kecks’ account and tester evidence, presented genuine disputes of material fact on race discrimination under § 1981 and the Elliott–Larsen Act, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred in denying discovery of wedding reception contracts central to the Kecks’ comparative-evidence theory.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence as a whole, a reasonable jury could find discriminatory intent or pretext, creating genuine issues of material fact.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff asserting race discrimination in contracting under § 1981 may proceed by showing either (a) similarly situated nonprotected customers were treated more favorably, or (b) the defendant engaged in “markedly hostile” or discriminatorily discouraging conduct toward the plaintiff’s attempt to contract.
- Comparative evidence of how an establishment contracted with other customers can be directly relevant to disparate treatment and pretext.
- Summary judgment is generally inappropriate where the nonmovant has been denied meaningful discovery on information central to proving disparate treatment or pretext.
- Persistent non-responsiveness or obstructive handling of a ready, willing, and able customer’s request to contract may support an inference of discriminatory discouragement when linked to race.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit ruled that the Kecks were entitled to discovery of comparable wedding contracts and that the combination of repeated failed contracting efforts and tester evidence created triable fact disputes on race discrimination, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.


Keck v. Graham Hotel Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2009)