Reyes

Franchisees of an Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) gas station and convenience store sued ARCO when their franchise was not renewed. 1 The District Court granted summary judgment to ARCO, and the franchisees appealed. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1986, the appellants, Wilfredo Reyes, and his wife, Bernardita, wanted to purchase a franchise for an existing ARCO gas station and convenience store from Mohammad Atti-yeh. The appellants agreed to pay $305,-000.00, consisting of $270,000.00 for assignment of Attiyeh’s franchise with ARCO, and $35,000.00 for inventory.

The assignment of Attiyeh’s franchise agreement to the appellants was contingent on ARCO’s approval of the appellants as franchisees. Wilfredo Reyes enrolled in an ARCO dealer’s school and completed his training in July 1986. He passed even though he displayed no aptitude for bookkeeping. The school instructors warned ARCO’s sales representative that Reyes would need help with bookkeeping. ■

On August 18, 1986, ARCO gave its permission for the appellants to assume the franchise. The next day, the appellants, At-tiyeh, and ARCO’s district manager Terry Firestone, met to close the transaction. Before…

dissenting:

We are required to defer to the factfinder in discrimination cases in which the defendant’s motive is at issue. Issues of motive, therefore, may not be decided on summary judgment. Because ARCO’s motive was at issue in this case, and because the majority holds that it was properly resolved on summary judgment, I dissent.

I do not think it matters whether we classify the Reyeses’ claims as disparate treatment, mixed motive, or both. There is evidence in the record of racial bias on ARCO’s part. The issue is whether that bias provided the motive for the failure to renew the Reyeses’ franchise.

Both Supreme Court precedent and our own case law emphasize that questions of motive are for the jury to decide. See, e.g., St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, — U.S. -, —, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2749 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104 , 1111 (9th Cir.1991); Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1008 (9th Cir.1985), as amended, 784 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir.1986). We have stated that the ultimate question whether the employer’s act was motivated by bias “can only be resolved through a ‘searching inquiry’ — one that is most appropriately…