Chapman v. Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company et al

Filing 73

ORDER adopting 67 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that Defendants' 55 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's 34 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/22/16. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Tonya R. Chapman,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company,
Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of
Spartanburg, SC, Samuel Bo Huffling,
Robert Carmen, and Lauren Pace,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:15-441-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff filed
a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34), and Defendants have also filed a motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 55). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., these matters were referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling.
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 67 at 11). Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 70). Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 72).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The Report has no
presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains
with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In making that
determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review of those portions of the
Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Then, the court may
accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge. Id.

1

Plaintiff’s objections are unpersuasive. Plaintiff objects to the finding that she did not
provide proper documentation when she sought to rent a car from the Spartanburg, South
Carolina branch of Enterprise Rent-a-Car. (ECF No. 70 at 2). While on her way to the
Spartanburg Enterprise branch, Plaintiff called to ask what documentation she would need to
provide as an out-of-state driver. (ECF No. 55-2 at 6). Plaintiff was informed that, as an out-ofstate driver, she would need to present a valid driver’s license, proof of insurance, and two forms
of bills. (ECF No. 55-2 at 6). Plaintiff provided her driver’s license, a bill from her car
insurance company, and a piece of a bill from her Duke Power bill to the Spartanburg Enterprise.
(ECF No. 55-2 at 11). Plaintiff did not have her proof of insurance card or provide two complete
bills. (ECF No. 55-2 at 14). Thus, she did not provide proper documentation. In any event,
even if she had provided proper documentation, Plaintiff has failed to introduce any evidence
that shows the decision to run her credit score and the subsequent denial of a rental car based on
that score was pretext for racial discrimination. The customer information system sheet that
Plaintiff signed provides: “I authorize Enterprise Rent-A-Car to run a credit check if necessary . .
. .” (ECF No. 37-1). The sheet further states: “If Renter does NOT have Full, Transferable Ins.,
Must Run a Credit Check.” (ECF No. 37-1).
Plaintiff next objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that she failed to prove direct
discrimination. (ECF No. 70 at 1). In order to prove a claim based on direct discrimination,
Plaintiff would have needed to introduce “evidence of conduct or statements that both reflect
directly the alleged discriminatory attitude and that bear directly on the contested employment
decision.” Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 520 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Taylor v. Va.
Union Univ., 193 F.3d 219, 232 (4th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). “Even if there is a statement that
reflects a discriminatory attitude, it must have a nexus with the adverse employment action.” Id.

2

Plaintiff claims that she has introduced evidence of direct discrimination by showing that she
was able to reserve a rental car on Enterprise’s website on the same day that she was denied a
rental car at the Spartanburg Enterprise branch. (ECF Nos. 64-4; 70 at 1). The court finds that
this is not evidence of direct discrimination. Plaintiff contacted the Spartanburg Enterprise prior
to arriving and asked what additional documentation she would need to rent a car as an out-ofstate driver. (ECF No. 55-2 at 6). She was informed of certain documentation, which she failed
to provide. After, she reserved a car online in her state of residence. (ECF No. 64-4). The fact
that she was able to reserve a car on Enterprise’s website does not establish that she was directly
discriminated against on the basis of her race at the Spartanburg Enterprise branch.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 67) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED
that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 22, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3