James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse in Philadelphia
PHILADELPHIA – A lawsuit alleging discrimination at PetSmart might be headed toward trial, after a federal magistrate judge found an employee’s refusal to sell a Black woman a fish could be construed as racism.
The woman, a grandmother trying to buy her granddaughter a pet, and the employee give wildly different versions of what happened on March 24, 2024. Philadelphia magistrate judge Pamela Carlos ruled this week that a reasonable factfinder could determine plaintiff Marguerite Faulckes’ civil rights were violated.
She made that ruling while tossing all of Faulckes’ other claims for relief. Though Liz Palumbo said she wouldn’t sell Faulckes the fish out of concern for its welfare, a jury could disagree, Carlos said.
“At trial, the factfinder will weigh Ms. Faulckes’ testimony against Ms. Palumbo’s testimony, and, in reaching a verdict, will make a credibility determination to accept one version of events over the other,” Carlos wrote. “The Court cannot weigh the testimony.”
According to Faulckes, she and her 3-year-old granddaughter went to a PetSmart in King of Prussia and picked out a fish tank and a bag of goldfish food. A white customer was buying fish as Faulckes sought assistance buying a fish from Palumbo.
Faulckes says Palumbo “had a look of disgust” and said, “I’m not serving you people anything because you’re not going to take care of it.” Faulckes reported Palumbo to PetSmart’s corporate office, acknowledging Palumbo never mentioned anything about race.
Palumbo’s story says Faulckes approached her with an all-purpose tote instead of a fish tank. When Palumbo told her the tote would not be suitable for a fish, Faulckes allegedly responded that she did not need the fish to live long.
“You guys don’t seem like you would have a proper setup and take care of the fish properly,” Palumbo claims she said. She refused to sell Faulckes a fish.
The ensuing lawsuit alleged emotional distress and civil rights violations. PetSmart’s defense says Palumbo had a valid reason for not selling the fish, because Faulckes had planned to keep it in a tote and said she didn’t need it to live long.
“A reasonable jury could accept Ms. Faulckes was indifferent to the fish’s lifespan and that was why Ms. Palumbo denied service,” Carlos wrote.
“If the factfinder were to accept Ms. Faulckes’ testimony that Ms. Palumbo would not sell her and F.F. the same kind of fish sold to a Caucasian customer, and that, in doing so, Ms. Palumbo did not follow the PetSmart’s HEAR/HEART policy, the factfinder could infer the denial of sale was based solely on race because Ms. Faulckes’ testimony is that Ms. Palumbo did not know anything about her, beyond her race.”
