Case Study 3 Page Due this Sunday

Read the description of the case of Lizardo versus Denny Inc. NDI in Chapter 2
of the textbook under Tort Liability (added below). Then, read the appeal of the case found on
the Case Law Website, located at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1405426.html.

Write a three to four (3) page paper in which you:

1. Describe how the security guards and Denny’s management should have handled
   the situation. 
2. Explain why the security guards’ daytime occupation influenced the decision
   in the case.
3. Justify the court’s decision to neglect this as a case of
   discrimination. 
4. Assess how this case can serve as a precedent for other cases and the
   conclusions you can you draw from this precedent.
5. Use at least two (2) quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia
   and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources.

Your
assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch
  margins on all sides; references must follow APA or school-specific format.
  Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s
  name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and
  the reference page are not included in the required page length.

“Lizardo vs Denny Inc.”

Two corrections officers were employed as security personnel at Denny’s Restaurant.
After a member of an Asian American group complained about the delay in being
seated, one of the officers escorted the complaining Asian American out of the
restaurant and threatened to arrest him for disorderly conduct. A series of fights erupted
outside the restaurant between the Asian American group and other restaurant patrons.
A group of African Americans also waiting to be seated went outside to observe the
argument. One of them went back inside and while describing the outside commotion,
used an expletive. After the restaurant manager warned the African American group to
be quiet or leave, the officers escorted them out of the restaurant. Members of both
groups sued Denny’s Restaurant and the security personnel for excluding them from the
restaurant because of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a constitutional tort. The court
held that the officers were acting in their official capacity as officers of the state when
escorting the Asian Americans out of the restaurant and threatening to arrest them for
disorderly conduct. Thus, Denny’s could not be held liable for the official acts of
government officers. The court also determined, however, that Denny’s could be held
liable for the conduct of the security personnel in escorting the African Americans out of
the restaurant at the urging of the store manager because that conduct was within the
scope of their employment as security personnel.—Lizardo v. Denny’s Inc., 2000.