United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019-07-09
42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; Section 1981 claim by a lender to a minority-owned prime contractor whose state contract was terminated; Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal affirmed by CA8; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
other: the defendants are the State of Missouri and a state official, but the opinion never discusses the state-remedial-route (Section 1983) or immunity for the Section 1981 claim; no block is recorded for it.
Element own-contract: route: no menu route for a derivative claim through another's contract (lender, shareholder, creditor of the contracting party; Domino's Pizza); employment-relationship lists these as out of scope.
Element racial-intent: route: the ruling is that the plaintiff was not personally the target of the discrimination (Bilello / Combs), partly on pleading-plausibility grounds; no menu route for "plaintiff not the target", so _whole.
Element racial-intent: scope: this is the court's second ground, addressed to the plaintiff's own loan agreement rather than the state contract; recorded as merits rather than alternative because it disposes of a different contractual theory.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 15
| Case | Persons protected by equal contractual rights | Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement | Judicial but-for causation of contractual injury | Nongovernmental impairment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCS Advisors, LLC v. Missouri — 929 F.3d 618 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 15
| Case | Judicial section 1983 remedial route for state-law impairment | Opposition to racial impairment of contract rights | Judicial defendant-knowledge requirement for retaliation | Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation | Judicial causation requirement for retaliatory injury | Contract and retaliation scope with noncontract clauses identified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCS Advisors, LLC v. Missouri — 929 F.3d 618 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–15 of 15
| Case | Judicial hostile-environment threshold and attribution | Claim-specific limitations and accrual | Compensatory equitable punitive and fee remedies |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCS Advisors, LLC v. Missouri — 929 F.3d 618 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCS Advisors, LLC v. Missouri — 929 F.3d 618 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded | lender-suing-over-termination-of-its-borrowers-state-contract | Missouri hired EngagePoint, a minority-owned information-technology company, to redesign the software for its health-benefits programs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [433:568] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1.Brevet alleges that Nelson's decision to terminate Missouri's contract with EngagePoint was motivated by racial animosity toward the company's managers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [5622:5774] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1.The first is that Brevet has not "identif[ied] an impaired 'contractual relationship' under which [it ] ha[d] rights."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [5925:6043] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1.The software contract was between Missouri and EngagePoint, not Brevet, and section 1981 does not allow Brevet to sue on EngagePoint's behalf, even if it too had a contractual relationship with the company.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [6140:6346] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1. |
| FCS Advisors, LLC v. Missouri — 929 F.3d 618 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded | lender-not-itself-target-of-animus-aimed-at-borrowers-management | The second was that Nelson's alleged racial animus toward EngagePoint's "Asian-Indian American management" led to the company's termination, which violated federal anti-discrimination laws.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [2112:2301] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1.To be sure, the complaint alleges that "Nelson also discriminated against [Brevet] directly by making fraudulent and/or false or materially misleading representations to it because of its association and work with EngagePoint's Asian-Indian American management."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [7603:7865] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1.The allegation is also implausible, particularly given that Brevet's complaint identifies independent non-discriminatory reasons for Nelson's actions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [7984:8134] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1.To the extent Brevet is relying on its own agreement with EngagePoint, its section 1981 claim fails for another reason. Brevet was not "the direct target of discrimination," nor did it experience discrimination based on its "relationship to, association with, or advocacy" for EngagePoint.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [6818:7107] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1.But this is a conclusory allegation based on a fraud theory that is itself inadequately pleaded.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0618-01; Unicode character offsets [7866:7962] (end exclusive); SHA-256 19413efd8a3765e4ce83a2cf048935b6a8ba51c70bef9f67e2d9af0c64069af1. |