Even though prosecutors ended up dismissing the shoplifting-related charges against an elderly Asian man, he failed to show that Walmart should be liable for its role in his erroneous arrest, a federal judge ruled last month.

Meng Uoy Chang asserted a Walmart store in Timnath had violated his rights after employees identified Chang as a shoplifter – who also appeared to be Asian and elderly – caught on surveillance footage. Chang argued Walmart’s actions amounted to discrimination under state and federal civil rights law, as well as false arrest.

But on Feb. 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott. T Varholak granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss. Chang had not shown all of the elements required for his various federal claims. For example, there were no allegations that Walmart participated with state authorities in Chang’s wrongful arrest aside from helping to identify the shoplifter.

“Plaintiff has not pled any facts, beyond the furnishing of information, to suggest that Defendant engaged in a joint action with state actor,” Varholak wrote.

According to the lawsuit, Chang went to the Timnath Walmart in December 2018 to return a set of work gloves he had previously purchased. The store accepted the return. Shortly afterward, a police officer reportedly stopped Chang, handcuffed him and asked him to sign documents Chang did not understand. Chang later discovered employees of the Walmart had reported him as a thief.

Chang allegedly did not return to the Timnath Walmart after the encounter, but the store reported another theft to police in February 2019. Security cameras captured a person, who appeared to be Asian, walking out with merchandise. A Walmart employee subsequently identified Chang in a photo lineup as the culprit.

In August 2019, police in Wyoming arrested Chang on a warrant for one felony and two misdemeanor charges related to the theft. Six months later, the district attorney’s office for Larimer County dismissed the charges because it could not prove Chang was the person in the surveillance footage.

“Plaintiff was not treated as people of other races would have been treated by Walmart, and there is no factual or legal excuse to justify how he was suspected and falsely accused by the Defendant as a thief, other than his race,” wrote Chang’s attorney, Yun Wang, who added that Chang lost his job due to the arrest and is “regularly tormented” by the experience.

Chang alleged Walmart was liable for false arrest, breach of contract, and discrimination in places of public accommodation, among other claims. Walmart moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing Chang had filed his complaint beyond the statute of limitations and Walmart had not prevented Chang from accessing the store. Therefore, he had not been excluded from a place of public accommodation.

“Walmart merely cooperated in the criminal investigation by local authorities,” wrote the company’s attorneys.

Chang countered that he had filed his lawsuit within the legal deadline and that Walmart’s actions violated federal law by interfering with his “right to make and enforce contracts.” In Chang’s view, Walmart reported him to police after he returned his items to the store, which was not a natural consequence of the “contract” between Walmart and its customers. The initial report was allegedly a launching pad for the later, race-based arrest.

“Plaintiff was not white, he is Asian, and he was picked by Walmart to be the protagonist of a falsely conjured police report just because the security footage shows a blurry image of a Asian-looking person,” Wang wrote.

Varholak agreed Chang’s false arrest and imprisonment claim could not survive under federal law because Chang had not alleged Walmart worked jointly with police to violate his rights. However, Varholak suggested Chang’s allegations may fit better under state law, and permitted Chang to refile them.

For Chang’s claim that Walmart discriminated against him in a way that interfered with his right to make and enforce contracts, Varholak noted Walmart had not inhibited Chang from purchasing or returning his items. Nor had the store inflicted “pains and punishments” on Chang, even if the company made a racially-motivated police report.

Finally, because Chang did not file the required notice with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, Varholak was unable to consider Chang’s claim that Walmart discriminated against him in a place of public accommodation.

Varholak declined to consider Chang’s remaining claims under state law. He gave Chang 21 days to file an amended lawsuit to address the problems the magistrate judge identified in the allegations.

The case is Chang v. Walmart, Inc.