Brown v. Philip Morris Inc.
(Class Action, US Dist. Ct. E PA 1988 Dismissed) Citation: 1999 WL 783712 (E.D.Pa. 22 Sep 1999); 250 F.3d 789 (17 May 2001)This class action civil rights suit was brought by Jesse Brown, Rev., individually and in behalf of all members of the Uptown Coalition for Tobacco Control and Health, Aaron Eleazer, Pansy Smith, Ellen Irving, and the National Association of African Americans for Positive Imagery, against Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, British American Tobacco, Lorillard, American Tobacco Co., United States Tobacco, the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, the Smokeless Tobacco Council, Hill & Knowlton, R.J. Reynolds, and Liggett on October 19, 1988.
The class action consists of all African-American smokers since 1954. The plaintiffs alleged that mentholated tobacco products pose greater health risks than non-mentholated ones and that knowing this, the defendants targeted African-Americans with mentholated tobacco marketing. This resulted in a disproportionately high percentage of methol smokers being African-American. They claimed that the defendants unlawfully targeted them based on their race in violation of the federal civil rights statutes. They also claimed a cause of action under the United States Constitution's Fifth Amendment. They claimed intentional racial discrimination and conspiracy, misrepresentation and fraud.
The defendants argued that a significant majority of menthol cigarette smokers were not African-American.
The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 98-cv-05518) before the Honorable John R. Padova. The judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (250 F3d 789) affirmed the decision and dismissed the case on May 17, 2001. The case was heard by Circuit Judges Roth and Barry and District Judge Milton I. Shadur. The court said without any disparty between what was sold to African-Americans and what was sold to others, there is no claim for deprivation of contract or property rights. Also, there was no claim under the Fifth Amendment because the defendants were not federal actors despite the federal regulatory scheme they were subject to. The plaintiffs fail make sufficiently detailed allegations regarding the fraud and misrepresentation claims.