PHILADELPHIA – A Baltimore man who brought class action litigation against SeaWorld and Sesame Place Philadelphia charging that employees of the Sesame Street-themed park discriminated against his daughter, a Black child, during a meet-and-greet session with some of the park’s costumed characters, says that the park’s arguments to dismiss the case are without merit.
Quinton Burns (individually and as next friend of K.B., a minor, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals) of Baltimore, Md. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 27 versus SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, LLC (doing business as “Sesame Place Philadelphia”) of Orlando, Fla., plus John Does 1-4.
“On June 18, 2022, Father’s Day, the Burns accepted SeaWorld’s offer to purchase two weekend admission tickets to SeaWorld’s amusement park, Sesame Place Philadelphia. The Burns performed their contractual duties by tendering remuneration in a bargained for exchange to experience SeaWorld’s Sesame Place Philadelphia attraction. SeaWorld’s offer which the Burns accepted included, the benefit and privilege of enjoyment of the amusement rides and ‘exclusive Sesame Street themed entertainment’ offered at Sesame Place, including but not limited to amusement park shows featuring ‘Meet and Greets’ with Sesame Street-themed costume character performers,” the suit said.
“By the terms of the contract between the Burns and SeaWorld, SeaWorld’s costume character performers were obligated to ‘Meet and Greet’ with SeaWorld’s customers to include Burns. Similarly, the Burns was entitled to SeaWorld’s performance of the contract by way of its costume character performers to ‘Meet and Greet’ with the Burns. During the Burns’ visit to Sesame Place, they attempted to participate in a ‘Meet and Greet’ with SeaWorld’s costume character performers dressed as Sesame Street characters ‘Elmo’, ‘Ernie’, ‘Telly Monster’ & ‘Abby Cadabby.’ SeaWorld’s costume character performers dressed as Sesame Street characters ‘Elmo’, ‘Ernie’, ‘Telly Monster’ & ‘Abby Cadabby’ intentionally refused to perform SeaWorld’s contract with the Burns and the Class by refusing to engage with them and ignoring them and all other Black guests in attendance.”
The suit maintained that the class of the lawsuit would include any Black guest of Sesame Place Philadelphia over the past four years who suffered disparate or discriminatory treatment by employees of the park.
A spokesperson for Sesame Place issued a statement in response to the lawsuit.
“We will review the lawsuit filed on behalf of Mr. Burns. We look forward to addressing that claim through the established legal process. We are committed to deliver an inclusive, equitable and entertaining experience for all our guests,” the statement said.
In a Nov. 2 answer to the complaint, the defendants doing business as Sesame Place Philadelphia denied that it or its performers discriminated against the plaintiffs in any fashion, and countered that not only had the plaintiffs failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, but also that their request for injunctive relief was invalid.
“Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their civil rights and are liable for negligence because certain costumed Sesame Street characters allegedly did not personally interact with them during ‘Meet and Greets’ or Parades at Sesame Place Philadelphia. Plaintiffs’ claims fail because an admission ticket to Sesame Place provides no contractual right to personal interactions with costumed characters on demand, and because plaintiffs have not alleged that the costumed characters treated them differently than other park guests. And plaintiffs’ negligence claim fails because plaintiffs fail to identify any applicable legal duty and make only conclusory allegations about breach without providing any factual support,” the answer stated, in part.
“Therefore, the entirety of plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Further, the amended complaint’s requests for injunctive relief should be dismissed for lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the named plaintiffs do not intend to return to Sesame Place and therefore are not likely to be harmed again in a similar way.”
According to the defense, the plaintiffs have “not alleged facts to demonstrate that they experienced disparate treatment by the at-issue costumed characters, let alone that the characters acted with the required intentional racial animus at the time of the interactions” – and because “there is not a sufficient likelihood that named plaintiffs will again be wronged in a similar way (by visiting the park again), they are not entitled to seek injunctive relief, on behalf of themselves or the class.”
UPDATE
On Nov. 30, the plaintiffs responded to the dismissal motion and charged that its arguments were unsubstantiated.
“Defendants contend that, because plaintiffs were granted licenses to enjoy the theme park experience, plaintiffs’ Section 1981 claims must be dismissed because, according to defendants, licenses are not contracts. This contention is not consistent with relevant Third Circuit and Pennsylvania cases and is without merit. Defendants contend plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a contractual right to personal interactions with costumed characters during ‘Meet and Greets’ and parades. Defendants’ contention is a straw argument designed to avoid responding to plaintiffs’ actual allegations,” per the plaintiff’s response.
“Plaintiffs do not allege they purchased admission tickets to enjoy a particular park activity or to interact with a particular costumed character. Rather, they allege they purchased admission tickets to the Sesame Place Amusement Park to enjoy the entire park experience, which included the various activities. Plaintiffs further allege that, while enjoying their park experience, they were subjected to racial discrimination at one or more of the park activities that prevented their enjoyment.”
Counsel for the named plaintiffs countered that “the defendants’ contention that plaintiffs have not alleged the costumed characters discriminated against them while engaging with white customers and that the racially discriminatory conduct was intentional ignores the plain allegations in the amended complaint.”
For counts of discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 plus state law claims of negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiffs are seeking a long list of various reliefs, including $25 million in damages, an unconditional apology for the conduct complained of, an injunction preventing the continuation of such conduct, discrimination education and sensitivity training for Sesame Place employees, attorney’s fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
The plaintiffs are represented by Martell Harris of The Trial Law Firm in Pittsburgh, Jason Duncan of Duncan Legal Group in Harrisburg, plus William H. Murphy Jr. Andrew K. O’Connell, Malcolm P. Ruff and Ronald E. Richardson of Murphy Falcon & Murphy, in Baltimore, Md.
The defendants are represented by Leigh Michael Skipper, Aleksander W. Smolij, John M. Simpson, Michelle Pardo and Rebecca Bazan of Duane Morris, in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-02941
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com