Source: cases/42usc1981/f-supp-3d-371-407-wang-v-gen-motors.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_371/0407_01/index.html
The Court concludes that § 1981 does not extend to such conduct and is therefore granting GM's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's § 1981 claim (Count III).
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/371/0407-01 name Wang v. Gen. Motors, LLC cite 371 F. Supp. 3d 407 (2019) court United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan date 2019-03-05 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_371/0407_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl sha1=70b7205f25eb31d7196a34b18216b0ec58da838e chars=42738 opinion order : order by Parker @0..42738 controlling law 42usc1981 role applied posture civil; Section 1981 race and ethnicity claim by a U.S. citizen employed in Shanghai by a GM affiliate (mandatory retirement at 60; denied transfer to the United States); GM's Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted as to the Section 1981 count (E.D. Mich.) result claimant-lost element protected-person : not-satisfied [law] route territorial-reach pattern us-citizen-working-in-china-for-affiliate-of-us-employer rule @20784..20956 [quoted] | The Second Circuit held: " Section 1981's territorial limitation is defined by the location of the subject of the discrimination, not by the location of the decisionmaker." fact @4611..4804 [cuts-against] | On or about July 1, 2009, GM transferred Plaintiff to a new job assignment at GMCIC as Senior Manager for Automotive Performance, Test and Validation in the Engineering Laboratories Department. fact @4409..4510 [supports] | He became a naturalized United States citizen in 1999, and currently maintains only U.S. citizenship. fact @16257..16540 [supports] | In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he requested to "be transferred back to the United States if he was not allowed to continue to work in China" and "made several other contacts with GM in an effort to obtain a position back in the United States, but he was denied a transfer." fact @21968..22170 [cuts-against] | The only discriminatory conduct Plaintiff has alleged in his Complaint and briefs (see Pl.'s Resp. Br. at 6, ECF No. 14 at Pg ID 137) occurred while he was outside the jurisdiction of the United States. held @22171..22321 | The Court concludes that § 1981 does not extend to such conduct and is therefore granting GM's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's § 1981 claim (Count III). ? basis: a legal construction of the statute's territorial reach (following Ofori-Tenkorang) applied to the complaint's allegations; [pleaded] would also be defensible