Freddie Douglas v. Metro Rental Services, Inc., 827 F.2d 252 (1987)

Citation: Freddie Douglas v. Metro Rental Services, Inc., 827 F.2d 252 (1987)
Parent Document: Freddie Douglas v. Metro Rental Services, Inc., 827 F.2d 252 (1987)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1987-08-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/493300/freddie-douglas-v-metro-rental-s... ↗

Full Text

1,343 chars

Metro argues that as a corporation it could act only through its agents, and no agent was found responsible for the discrimination. How could it, Metro asks, be found responsible for the discrimination if its president, Wolf, who dealt with the plaintiffs, was not personally guilty of discrimination? In spite of there being some logic to that argument, it remains that there was no claim of joint liability, each defendant having been sued individually and separately. Moreover, we agree with the magistrate that the two judgments are not necessarily inconsistent. By its default Metro admitted liability. The default is not explained, but perhaps it was oversight or a misguided tactical decision. One can speculate as to how the supposed inconsistency between the two judgments might be explained. It may be that Lester, the first Metro employee to meet plaintiffs, was the one who instigated the discrimination, or that Metro had a policy of racial discrimination set by its board of directors, or that other employees were involved. We cannot be sure, but Metro caused these problems by defaulting, and cannot now take advantage of the judgment in favor of its president. For whatever reason Metro, by defaulting, admitted its guilt in that it “refused to rent, refused to negotiate for the rental of, and otherwise made unavailable *256

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text