M02_CURT1502_02_SE_C02_w.pdfRead the description of the case of Lizardo versus Denny Inc. NDI in Chapter 2 of the textbook under Tort Liability (added below). Then, read the appeal of the case found on the Case Law Website, located at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1405426.html. Write a three to four (3) page paper in which you: Describe how the security guards and Denny’s management should have handled the situation. Explain why the security guards’ daytime occupation influenced the decision in the case.Justify the court’s decision to neglect this as a case of discrimination. Assess how this case can serve as a precedent for other cases and the conclusions you can you draw from this precedent.Use at least two (2) quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources.Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required page length.’Lizardo vs Denny Inc.’Two corrections officers were employed as security personnel at Denny’s Restaurant.After a member of an Asian American group complained about the delay in beingseated, one of the officers escorted the complaining Asian American out of therestaurant and threatened to arrest him for disorderly conduct. A series of fights eruptedoutside the restaurant between the Asian American group and other restaurant patrons.A group of African Americans also waiting to be seated went outside to observe theargument. One of them went back inside and while describing the outside commotion,used an expletive. After the restaurant manager warned the African American group tobe quiet or leave, the officers escorted them out of the restaurant. Members of bothgroups sued Denny’s Restaurant and the security personnel for excluding them from therestaurant because of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a constitutional tort. The courtheld that the officers were acting in their official capacity as officers of the state whenescorting the Asian Americans out of the restaurant and threatening to arrest them fordisorderly conduct. Thus, Denny’s could not be held liable for the official acts ofgovernment officers. The court also determined, however, that Denny’s could be heldliable for the conduct of the security personnel in escorting the African Americans out ofthe restaurant at the urging of the store manager because that conduct was within thescope of their employment as security personnel.—Lizardo v. Denny’s Inc., 2000.