Quinton Burns, et al vs.  Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., et al

Case Background

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff Quinton Burns and others filed a Racial discrimination lawsuit in the United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern, Philadelphia Division(Case number – 2:22cv2941). This case was presided over by the District Judge Wendy Beetlestone.

Cause

The racial discrimination incident at Sesame Place Philadelphia unfolded on June 18, 2022, when Quinton Burns and his minor child K.B., African American residents of Baltimore, purchased two-weekend admission tickets. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment marketed Sesame Place Philadelphia as a family-friendly destination offering “exclusive Sesame Street-themed entertainment” and character Meet and Greets. The racial discrimination lawsuit became evident when costume performers, dressed as beloved Sesame Street characters like Elmo, Ernie, Telly Monster, and Abby Cadabby, systematically ignored the Burns family and other Black guests while engaging with white visitors and their children.

Multiple instances of racial discrimination occurred in broad daylight during regular business hours. Video evidence captured several incidents of racial bias at theme park Meet and Greets, showing a clear pattern of discriminatory behavior toward Black children over different days. These acts of public accommodation discrimination took place openly, indicating SeaWorld’s awareness and tacit acceptance of such practices.

Injuries

The racial discrimination at Sesame Place caused immediate and lasting harm. The Burns family and other Black visitors were deliberately excluded from park activities and services. The costume character performers fostered a hostile environment by refusing to interact with Black children while enthusiastically engaging with white children. This racial bias in the theme park led to preferential treatment that caused public humiliation, as other visitors witnessed the discrimination.

The racial discrimination lawsuit extended beyond the initial incident. Black guests, who paid the same admission price as white visitors, received inferior services and experiences. This created a two-tiered system of entertainment, where Black children observed performers warmly welcoming white children while intentionally avoiding interaction with them.

Damages

The race-based discrimination at Sesame Place Philadelphia led to significant damages. The Burns family and other class members suffered civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They faced direct economic losses from paying full admission prices while receiving diminished services. The theme park’s negligence also caused severe non-economic damages, including:

  • Acute emotional distress and humiliation
  • Lasting psychological trauma
  • Development of anxiety and depression
  • Significant loss of self-esteem
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms
  • Physical manifestations of emotional distress
  • Diminished quality of life
  • Lost professional and social opportunities

The racial discrimination lawsuit sought damages exceeding $25 million, along with comprehensive injunctive relief. The plaintiffs requested remedies such as mandatory cultural sensitivity training, enhanced psychological screening for employees, and educational programs addressing discrimination in America.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Quinton Burns, individually and as next friend of K.B. (a minor), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals | Nathan Fleming, individually and as next friend of O.F. (a minor), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals | LaShonda Miles, individually and as next friend of M.C. (a minor), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals | Ingrid Morales, individually and as next friend of N.M. (a minor), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals | Yoselis Romero, individually and as next friend of E.C. (a minor), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals | Katie Valdez, individually and as next friend of M.L. (a minor), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals | Ashley Valette, individually and as next friend of D.V. (a minor), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Amy L. Kurland | Andrew K. O’Connell | Malcolm P. Ruff | Phylecia R. Faublas | Ronald E. Richardson | William H. Murphy, Jr. | Jason B. Duncan | Martell Harris

 

  • Defendant(s): Seaworld Parks & Entertainment LLC doing business as Sesame Place Philadelphia
    • Counsel for Defendants: John M. Simpson | Joseph K. West | Leigh Michael Skipper | Michelle Pardo | Rebecca Bazan | Aleksander W. Smolij

Claims

The plaintiffs established three primary legal claims in their racial discrimination lawsuit:

Race Discrimination Violation:

SeaWorld violated 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 by failing to honor its contractual obligations based on race. The theme park created a hostile retail environment and denied Black guests equal access to advertised services, constituting a clear civil rights violation.

Contract Breach:

SeaWorld’s actions amounted to a material breach of contract. The theme park failed to deliver the promised entertainment experience to Black guests, particularly regarding the character Meet and Greets included in the admission price. This public accommodation discrimination directly violated the terms of service.

Negligence Claims:

SeaWorld demonstrated negligence through:

  • Hiring practices that failed to screen for racial bias
  • Insufficient staff training on non-discrimination policies
  • Inadequate supervision of costume character performers
  • Failure to prevent or address discriminatory conduct

Defense

In their response, SeaWorld denied almost all allegations in the complaint, including claims of discrimination. They admitted only that SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC were organized under Delaware law with principal offices in Orlando, Florida.

SeaWorld raised seven affirmative defenses, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the claims could not properly be certified or maintained as a class action. They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert some or all of their claims. SeaWorld claimed that the plaintiffs’ negligence claim was barred by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), which excluded state law claims arising from alleged discriminatory conduct that could have been brought under the PHRA. Additionally, they argued that some causes of action were barred by the doctrine of laches and that some plaintiffs had waived their right to participate in a class action. Finally, SeaWorld contended that the plaintiffs did not suffer any actionable injury, or if they did, it was not caused by SeaWorld.

SeaWorld reserved the right to amend their answer based on information revealed through discovery or further legal analysis. They requested that the court dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice and award them costs and other relief as deemed appropriate.

Jury Verdict

On September 18, 2024, after reviewing the evidence and deliberating on the claims presented, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defense. The jury found that the evidence provided by the plaintiffs, while pointing to troubling incidents of racial bias, failed to establish that SeaWorld had violated civil rights laws to the extent required for a successful racial discrimination lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request