Alabama man suing Hobby Lobby over racial profiling
A man who claims he was racially profiled while returning a malfunctioning paper-cutting machine to a Hobby Lobby near Birmingham is suing the craft store for false imprisonment and negligence.
On May 15, Brian Spurlock tried to return an item, with a receipt in hand, to the Hobby Lobby on Patrick Way in Trussville, according to the lawsuit. During the exchange, the Trussville police were called because store employees said he resembled a person who was returning stolen items.
"The Hobby Lobby employees did everything they could to have Spurlock incarcerated and therefore prevent him from enforcing the contract and returning the item in accordance with the contract," the complaint reads. "They did this simply because Spurlock is a young African American male, and under the guise that he 'resembled' a thief."
Christopher Burrell, attorney with the Birmingham law firm of Burrell & McCants, filed the lawsuit in Jefferson County on Thursday on behalf of Spurlock.
The complaint states Spurlock wouldn't have had a receipt if he had been trying to return a stolen item. At the time, police said Spurlock was not the suspect. Spurlock's attorneys questioned the store's reasoning in the complaint, in which the store and its employees are listed as defendants.
The complaint seeks compensation for an amount to be determined by a jury.
Hobby Lobby did not return phone calls or emails seeking comment before this article was published.
The complaint states Spurlock was trying to return a malfunctioning item he bought from the store 10 days prior. The store's return policy allows customers to return items within 90 days of purchase with a receipt. That same policy was printed on Spurlock's receipt, the complaint states.
The cashier, a white female identified as "Fictitious Defendant No. 1," told Spurlock she needed to go see a manager, another white female identified as " Fictitious Defendant No. 2," to see if the item is returnable. The manager said she would have to call corporate and asked for Spurlock's identification.
The complaint alleges the manager either didn't call corporate and called the police instead or called both corporate and the police since a Trussville police officer arrived at the store shortly after the call. Burrell said the officer approached Spurlock "in an aggressive manner," asked for Spurlock's identification and told him he was "about to be trespassed."
According to the complaint, the manager gave the officer Spurlock's ID. The officer left the store and went to his police car. The lawsuit states that the officer came back and told the manager there were no warrants on Spurlock.
The complaint claims Spurlock became falsely imprisoned when the manager took his ID and gave it to the officer.
"The Defendants gave the police the Plaintiff's identification, which further detained him as the police searched for warrants on him," the complaint reads. "The Defendants' actions deprived the Plaintiff of his personal liberty and has caused the Plaintiff pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, out of pocket expenses, and a fear of loss of standing in the community of their peers."
Trussville Police Lt. Phil Dylan said in a statement in May that dispatch received a call from Hobby Lobby about someone store employees believed had written bad checks and made fraudulent returns to the store. Hobby Lobby asked for police assistance. When the officer came into the store, Trussville police said the officer asked Spurlock for his ID. The police said Spurlock asked them why. After giving him an explanation, Spurlock gave the officer an ID. When the officer ran the ID, it came back expired.
According to the police statement, the officer gave the ID back to Spurlock and told him to call someone to pick him up since he didn't have a valid driver's license on him at the time.
"Hobby Lobby did have a picture of the person that was writing bad checks and making fraudulent returns and it looked somewhat like the person in the store but it did not appear to be him," Dillon said.
During this time, Burrell said Spurlock's girlfriend, Ashley Maddox, came into the store and asked the manager why the police were called on her boyfriend for returning an item.
Maddox video recorded the incident. In the video, Spurlock tells an employee, "I wasn't disrespectful towards nobody."
The complaint states the manager said she was only following orders from upper management. When Spurlock stepped away to speak to another individual, the manager then threatened to have Spurlock "trespassed" for speaking more loudly than she felt he should speak, the complaint reads.
Spurlock was allowed to return the item and he was issued a refund, but Burrell said his client was shocked and hurt after the incident. The complaint argues the store employees were negligent in their actions towards Spurlock because the store's responsibility is to provide customers with "a reasonably safe environment free from, among other things, discrimination and false imprisonment."
Spurlock and Maddox were given a customer service number during the incident. When they called the same day, Maddox said a customer representative promised that they would get back with them.
Burrell said the law firm tried to contact Hobby Lobby corporate in May, but did not hear from anyone.
"Defendant Hobby Lobby breached its duties when it allowed Fictitious Defendants No. 1 and No. 2 to remain on its premises after it should have been aware of their discriminatory propensities," the complaint states. "The inattention, thoughtlessness, heedlessness and lack of due care on behalf of Defendant Hobby Lobby in their actions and inactions in allowing the aforementioned situation to occur during business hours constituted a breach of the duty of care owed by Defendant Hobby Lobby to the Plaintiff."
Burrell told AL.com during an interview on Friday the law firm also sent a letter to Hobby Lobby's CEO via certified mail in July asking to handle the matter without litigation. Burrell said they haven't heard anything from the store.
"Most times whenever we send something to the possible party about a lawsuit, we get some type of response about us speaking to their attorneys and we get a response from the attorneys," Burrell said. "But in this case, we haven't gotten a response back. So, it is very unusual."
