Source: cases/42usc1981/f-supp-3d-385-224-benzinger-v-nysarc.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_385/0224_01/index.html
the Court finds that allegations of repeated laughter in response to racist slurs in two separate incidents is sufficient to plead an intent to discriminate.
Plaintiff has thus failed to allege that UPS can be held liable for interference with Plaintiff's contract.
The Court finds that Plaintiff must plead he was directly denied the benefits of his contract, not that the conduct affected his decision not to continue engagement with a contractual partner.
The Court concludes that while blocking physical access to the lobby might prevent the formation of a contract with Access, Plaintiff has failed to allege that the contractual relationship with Access extended to interpersonal dealings he might have in the lobby while entering or exiting the building.
Accordingly, it concludes that Plaintiff cannot base a cause of action under Section 1981 on the violation of a law of New York City.
casedsl 1.2
# author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f-supp-3d/385/0224-01
name Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc.
cite 385 F. Supp. 3d 224 (2019)
# IR court field says: United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
date 2019-06-21
url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_385/0224_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl sha1=cb35c810f3dd0a12aebda7db4c5c60f5c53e6fb0 chars=46308
opinion order : order by Failla @0..46308 controlling
theory third-party : the security contractor interfered with plaintiff's contract with a building tenant (the clinic)
theory contract-scope : the lobby encounters impaired the contracted-for experience with the tenant
law 42usc1981
role applied
posture civil; Section 1981 contract and equal-benefit claims by a clinic patient against the building's security contractor over a guard's laughter at a porter's racial slurs in the lobby; contractor's Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted with prejudice as to Section 1981 (S.D.N.Y.)
result claimant-lost
element protected-person : satisfied [pleaded]
route race
pattern asian-american
fact @1128..1195 [supports] | Plaintiff is an Asian-American man who resides in Queens, New York.
element private-actor : satisfied [pleaded]
route _whole
pattern lobby-security-services-company
fact @1444..1561 [supports] | Defendant UPS is a New York limited liability company that contracted to provide security services to 83 Maiden Lane.
element racial-intent : satisfied [pleaded]
route _whole
pattern security-guard-laughing-at-coworkers-racial-slurs-on-two-occasions
rule @9460..9609 [quoted] | "To establish a violation of [ Section] 1981, a plaintiff must show that a defendant's acts were purposefully discriminatory and racially motivated."
fact @2242..2421 [supports] | Plaintiff alleges that within his earshot, Rivera said to Brooks, "That chink says he's not Chinese, he said he's Korean. How can I tell the difference? All chinks look the same."
fact @2430..2504 [supports] | He further alleges that both Rivera and Brooks laughed after this comment.
fact @2668..2733 [supports] | Brooks and Rivera laughed together in response to these comments.
fact @13512..13645 [cuts-against] | The words "he ain't gonna say nothing to you" contain no reference to race, and Brooks took no action towards Plaintiff at that time.
held @13223..13380 | the Court finds that allegations of repeated laughter in response to racist slurs in two separate incidents is sufficient to plead an intent to discriminate.
? route: direct evidence of the actor's own animus (laughter at slurs); none of comparator / pretext-evidence / decisionmaker-attribution fits
element contractual-impairment : not-satisfied [pleaded]
theory third-party
route third-party-interference
pattern lobby-security-guard-with-no-authority-over-or-awareness-of-patients-contract-with-tenant-clinic
rule @16498..16706 [quoted] | "liability under [ Section] 1981 for interference with a third-party contract attaches only to persons who actually had the power or authority to prevent the plaintiffs from contracting with the third party."
fact @1617..1777 [supports] | On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff entered the lobby of 83 Maiden Lane to make an appointment with Access Community Health Center ("Access"), a tenant of the building.
fact @17526..17741 [cuts-against absent] | Plaintiff makes no allegation that Brooks was aware of Plaintiff's contract with Access, or that he or anyone else at UPS possessed sufficient authority to interfere with Plaintiff's ability to contract with Access.
held @18427..18534 | Plaintiff has thus failed to allege that UPS can be held liable for interference with Plaintiff's contract.
element contractual-impairment : not-satisfied [pleaded]
theory contract-scope
route commercial-contract
pattern racial-abuse-in-building-lobby-on-the-way-to-and-from-tenant-clinic-without-denial-of-access
rule @45155..45347 | The Court finds that Plaintiff must plead he was directly denied the benefits of his contract, not that the conduct affected his decision not to continue engagement with a contractual partner.
fact @20039..20126 [cuts-against] | Plaintiff was not prevented from entering or exiting Access at any point on either day.
fact @5135..5287 [supports] | Plaintiff alleges that he did not attend his August 2016 follow-up appointment at Access, as he feared further racial harassment from Rivera and Brooks.
held @19472..19774 | The Court concludes that while blocking physical access to the lobby might prevent the formation of a contract with Access, Plaintiff has failed to allege that the contractual relationship with Access extended to interpersonal dealings he might have in the lobby while entering or exiting the building.
gloss The court took the patient's relationship with the clinic as the contract and held only that it did not reach the lobby encounters; it did not hold that plaintiff lacked a contract of his own, so no own-contract block is recorded.
element catalogue-scope : not-satisfied [law]
route _whole
pattern equal-benefit-clause-claim-resting-only-on-a-municipal-anti-discrimination-ordinance
rule @21420..21733 [quoted] | To establish a violation of Section 1981's guarantee of "full and equal benefit" of laws, a plaintiff must "[i] allege racial animus ...; [ii] identify a relevant 'law or proceeding for the security of persons and property;' and [iii] allege that defendants deprived them of the 'full and equal benefit' thereof."
fact @22919..23078 [cuts-against absent] | Plaintiff has alleged no nexus to state law, as the sole allegation discussed in this context is a violation the NYCHRL, a local anti-discrimination ordinance.
held @24385..24518 | Accordingly, it concludes that Plaintiff cannot base a cause of action under Section 1981 on the violation of a law of New York City.
? other: catalogue-scope is the nearest declared id for the non-contract "full and equal benefit" clause, which the law file does not decompose