United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019-05-17
42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; Section 1981 race discrimination in discharge after reorganization; pre-discovery summary judgment for employer and denial of Rule 56(d) discovery affirmed by CADC; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
other: D.C. Water is described as an independent agency of the D.C. government, but the opinion never discusses the state-remedial-route (Section 1983 / Monell) for the Section 1981 claim; no block is recorded for it.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/procedural | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded The discharge itself was undisputed; the court decided the claim on intent/pretext, not on whether a contractual injury occurred. | discharge-for-failure-to-obtain-newly-required-license | Haynes failed to complete the journeyman electrician license exam by the extended deadline of May 31, 2015 and was fired.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [5407:5528] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d. |
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | water-authority-electrician | Haynes had worked at the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority ("D.C. Water") for nearly thirty years when his position was eliminated as part of a reorganization.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [31:187] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d. |
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Persons protected by equal contractual rights | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | black | Haynes, who is over fifty and black, alleges that younger, white electricians employed by D.C. Water received accommodations, including being given more time to obtain their licenses, not being subjected to the heightened license requirement, or being allowed to return to school for additional training.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [3045:3349] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d. |
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; theory: whether the summary-judgment record raised a triable issue of intentional race discrimination; subject: theory=whether the summary-judgment record raised a triable issue of intentional race discrimination The merits ruling is narrow (footnote): the only preserved merits objection was that the district court failed to credit an unsupported assertion about mostly white utility workers. The body of Part II.D is the Rule 56(d) ruling, recorded separately. | alleged-white-comparators-given-more-time-rebutted-by-uniform-licensing-deadlines | D.C. Water then presented evidence that the only electricians subject to new licensure requirements during the reorganization were Electrical Equipment Repairers like Haynes, and that all the Repairers were treated the same (or worse) than Haynes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [34126:34373] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d.Along with Haynes, the remaining two black employees did not complete the licensing exam by March 31, 2015 and were given the additional sixty-day extension.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [5866:6023] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d.Prior to March 31, 2015, one black Repairer and the white Repairer completed the exam.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [5779:5865] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d.D.C. Water presented evidence that utility workers were not electricians subject to the licensure requirements that Haynes alleges were discriminatorily administered.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [42332:42498] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d.Rather than file a declaration or other materials disputing that evidence, Haynes offered only argument.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [42535:42639] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d.Although the framework for evaluating Section 1981 claims resembles that for Title VII claims, discrimination under Section 1981 must be intentionalSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [28351:28499] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d.That cannot create a triable issue of fact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [42640:42683] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d.(4) summary judgment on Haynes's Section 1981 claim was appropriate given the record before the district court.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [7922:8033] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d. |
| Haynes v. Dist. of Columbia Water — 924 F.3d 519 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — not reached (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural theory: whether denying pre-discovery Rule 56(d) relief on the Section 1981 claim was an abuse of discretion; subject: theory=whether denying pre-discovery Rule 56(d) relief on the Section 1981 claim was an abuse of discretion | rule-56d-declaration-listing-categories-of-comparator-discovery-without-explaining-necessity | Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Haynes's Rule 56(d) request for discovery.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0519-01; Unicode character offsets [39840:39971] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1eafc1ea7f5f2854b304c350ea70259bad6c7b872132f8381f6e86010b82e92d. |