Vanguard News Desk Editor
LOS ANGELES, CA – The Vanguard has learned a lawsuit has been filed here in federal court against the Louis Vuitton luxury designer brand by three Black people—two from Los Angeles—who complain they’ve been banned from Louis Vuitton stores for “Shopping While Black.”
Filed by Las Vegas attorney Jerold D. Friedman, the suit accuses Louis Vuitton stores of racial discrimination, civil rights violations, breach of contract and theft (for not refunding $50,000 a plaintiff paid in 2022 for merchandise never received.)
The suit seeks damages for “invidious race-based discrimination labeled in common parlance as Shopping while Black…repeated violations of (the plaintiffs) dignity and rights to conduct business
in the United States as equals to White citizens…to be treated as equal to all other persons and not to be blacklisted and otherwise suffer race discrimination.”
The pleading, lodged in U.S. District Court, Central District of California/Western Division, named as plaintiffs Los Angeles resident Tracy Reneé Williams, her daughter, Brandi Williams, of Cook County, IL and Kristopher Enoch, of LA.
And Friedman’s clients apparently are not alone.
The pleading cites Racial Bias in Retail, a 2021 study that found Black people are 2.5 times more likely than white customers to receive unfair treatment based on skin color.
And, according to Oprah Winfrey, the suit notes, she was also not able to buy from Louis Vuitton at its Rome store. The richest Black woman in the world, Winfrey, in a video on her YouTube channel in 2015, said she was turned away because, allegedly, she was not Italian.
In the current Louis Vuitton lawsuit, the pleading states defendants “cater to wealthy customers like Plaintiffs,” who shopped – until “they were trespassed and blacklisted” – in Louis Vuitton stores in Beverly Hills and Costa Mesa, CA, New York, Chicago, and New Orleans, purchasing “over one half million dollars in Louis Vuitton products annually, and up to or around $60,000 on some days.”
The filing notes the plaintiffs paid – like many other Louis Vuitton customers – for their purchases with cash, until September of 2022, when plaintiffs received an email – out of the blue – from the stores banning them.
The message stated, in part, “Louis Vuitton is no longer prepared to do business with you and we ask that you no longer patronize our boutiques or attempt to order our products via telephone, online, or in person at any Louis Vuitton store. Please do not make further attempts to contact the stores.”
The lawsuit claims there had been no conflict between the stores and plaintiffs, and charges, “The total denial of the right to shop is textbook blacklisting,” because plaintiffs “are Black.”
Further, the suit said Louis Vuitton stores “falsely identified and published to their staff, whether orally or in writing, that Plaintiffs were drug dealers. This had no basis in fact whatsoever.”
The suit added after this time, plaintiffs were asked to leave promptly from Louis Vuitton stores. After Plaintiffs received the e-mail they were asked to leave, and all sales were rejected.
Tracy was kicked out of a Beverly Hills store under threat of arrests, the lawsuit explains, adding when she sent a white assistant, they were able to complete the purchase without any problems.
The lawsuit also says that not only did Tracy not receive the $50,000 of merchandise she had ordered, but she also never received a refund.
The suit also claims Brandi was ushered out of a Chicago Louis Vuitton store, and a white store manager accused her of spending “drug money” in their store.
Brandi said she gave a non-Black friend a gift card to make the purchase for her, and her friend was allowed to make the purchase, the lawsuit claims, adding Brandi later was called and told to return the “illegal” purchase.
The third plaintiff, Enoch, said he was banned after attempting to make a purchase for Tracy, according to the lawsuit, adding Enoch tried to purchase a jacket he saw being shown to a non-Black customer. He was told he could not buy the item.
The lawsuit calls out five causes of action, including, “injunctive relief to rectify losses that they
suffered due to Defendants’ violations…damages to the full extent provided by law, injunctive relief to protect against future discrimination, reasonable attorney fees and costs.”
The pleading alleges punitive damages because “Defendants acted in a despicable manner; with malice, fraud, or oppression; with extreme indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs at a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate; and with intent to cause harm to Plaintiffs.”
The suit argues, “Defendants’ actions and inactions…constitute intentional discrimination by failing to provide full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in Defendants’
business establishments at their stores and online…Defendants acted and/or refused to act with malice or reckless disregard for each of Plaintiffs’ state-protected rights.”
The suit also alleges Louis Vuitton “treated” the Black plaintiffs “differently and less favorably
than Defendants’ similarly situated actual and potential customers who are not Black (and) constitute intentional discrimination by blacklisting each Plaintiff based on their race, perceived race, or race/perceived race of an associate.”
According to attorney Friedman, he’s asking the court for “permanent injunctive relief” to “Remove negative information concerning Plaintiffs from their files, withdraw or correct such negative information that previously has been communicated or disseminated to any credit reporting service, public agency, or other third party relating to any Plaintiff, refrain from communicating or disseminating any such negative information in the future,” and forbid “any future discrimination or retaliation against any Plaintiff.”
