053910P.pdf   05/12/2009  Crystal Gregory  v.  Dillard's
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  05-3910
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Judge Colloton, Author, for the Court En Banc]
   Civil case - civil rights. The district court did not err in dismissing nine
   plaintiffs' Section 1981 claims, as an allegation of discriminatory
   surveillance alone is insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
   1981; with respect to four plaintiffs whose Section 1981 claims were
   dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, the district court did not
   err in granting the defendant retailer's motion for summary judgment as
   these plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to show interference
   with a protected activity; the case is remanded to the district court with
   directions to modify its final judgement so as to dismiss the Missouri
   Human Rights Act claims without prejudice so that the claims may be
   decided by the courts of Missouri. Judge Benton, concurring in part and
   dissenting in part. Judge Murphy, with whom Judge Bye, Judge Melloy
   and Judge Smith join, dissenting.
  
053910P.pdf   07/20/2007  Crystal Gregory  v.  Dillard's Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  05-3910
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Melloy and Colloton, Circuit
   Judges]
   Civil case - civil rights. District court erred in granting Dillard's motion
   for summary judgment on the ground that some of the plaintiffs had 
   failed to make a prima facie case of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C.
   Sec. 1981, as those plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create a
   genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dillard's interfered with their
   attempts to purchase items by subjecting them to race-based surveillance
   and denial of service; court also erred in dismissing certain plaintiffs on
   the ground that their allegations concerning the racially discriminatory
   surveillance failed to state a claim under Section 1981; Dillard's
   department store was a place of public accommodation under Missouri
   law, and the court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims under the
   Missouri Human Rights Act; district court did not err in granting
   Dillard's motion for summary judgment on one plaintiff's claims as there
   was no evidence he actually expressed a desire to make any purchases.
   Judge Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting in part.