Plaintiff owned a company that put on fashion shows for the African-American community.?? All of the company representatives were African- American.?? ?For ?several ?years, ?the ?company ?had held an annual show in the Grand Ballroom at the ?LA ?Airport ?Westin ?on ?Mother?s ?Day.?? ?In 2000,? the? company? and? the? hotel ?signed? a contract for the use of the Grand Ballroom in 2000. When the plaintiff arrived on the day of the event, he found that a much smaller Bar Mitzvah was being set up in the room. The hotel refused to move the Bar Mitzvah but offered the plaintiff an alternative space, which he accepted. The plaintiff then filed a section 1981 claim against the hotel claiming race discrimination in the handling of the room booking.?? The district court granted summary judgment to the hotel but the Ninth Circuit reversed.?? The main issue on appeal had to do with the elements of a section 1981 prima facie case outside of the employment setting.?? ?Secondarily,? the ?panel ?re-emphasized that a trier of fact may infer discrimination if the plaintiff disproves the defendant?s alleged discriminatory reasons.?? The opinion is largely helpful to plaintiffs in the employment context, but contains a troubling sentence: ?Thus, the proper procedure, as clarified by Reeves, is to set before the factfinder the task of analyzing the entire record in order to evaluate the credibility of the reasons proferred, the possibility of other non-discriminatory reasons, and the ultimate likelihood that the main motive was discriminatory.??? The issue in a discrimination case is not what the ?main motive? of the defendant was, but whether an unlawful motive played a sufficient causal role in the adverse action. ?There is however, a good quotation about defendants? ?masking their behavior behind a complex web of post hoc rationalizations.? Lindsey v. SLT Los Angeles LLC, No. 03-55824 (12/20/05; Reed (D. Nev.), Pregerson, Canby)