AND · 42usc1981:contractual-impairment
Section 1981 is not an omnibus remedy for all offensive conduct. The 1991 definition displaced Patterson’s restricted postformation coverage; do not revive that superseded limitation. Contract rights can be impaired without a separately proven state-law breach-of-contract tort.
Exact element source
For purposes of this section, the term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1981; Unicode character offsets [541:788] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5e5aa212ab2f30dd84c80b0b228057e2c583768ee608c391e0ac73d92e609577.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _procedural accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Brown v. Kansas City Live, LLC — 931 F.3d 712 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · background/procedural · not counted |
| commercial-contract provisional; provisional (1 case) | Retail, service and other contracting outside employment; identify the actual proposed or existing contractual opportunity. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 3d 224 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| contract-phase provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the conduct falls within the phases of the contractual relationship the statute protects (formation versus post-formation; Patterson and the 1991 amendment). | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (2). Excluded context examples:Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. — 541 U.S. 369 (2004) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald — 546 U.S. 470 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| employment-contract provisional; 2 observed cases | Hiring, promotion or discharge impairing the employment relationship; a hostile-environment theory must also satisfy hostile-environment under the conditional constraint below. | 2 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 2 | 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)) · applied/merits · counted Freeman v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi. — 927 F.3d 961 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| materially-adverse-change provisional; 3 observed cases | Whether the challenged treatment altered the terms of the contractual relationship enough to be an impairment. | 3 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 2; excluded context 0 | 3 | Sosa v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. & Marcy Berger — 368 F. Supp. 3d 489 (2019) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Mills v. Cellco Partnership — 376 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · 2019 — satisfied · triable (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Fields v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi. & Chad P. Weiden — 928 F.3d 622 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| third-party-interference provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a defendant who is not a party to the contract impaired the plaintiff's contractual relationship with someone else. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 3d 224 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sosa v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. & Marcy Berger — 368 F. Supp. 3d 489 (2019) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; opinion: order (Bulsara, M.J. (report and recommendation, adopted in its entirety by the order)); subject: opinion=order (Bulsara, M.J. (report and recommendation, adopted in its entirety by the order)) The district judge overruled the objection to this part of the R & R and adopted it (order @8641..9057). | partial-denial-and-delay-of-schedule-accommodation-letters-to-file-and-unevenly-applied-workplace-rules | "A plaintiff sustains an adverse employment action if he or she endures a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0489-01; Unicode character offsets [50247:50390] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a0a3a1f4d2d4b07c6b8cd3ebf69de3ca10eb819f9c80c558c27375c0b189b780.As to the failure to accommodate and the related delay, Sosa alleges Defendants failed to provide her with a single prep period on one day of the work week, as she had originally requested.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0489-01; Unicode character offsets [52744:52933] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a0a3a1f4d2d4b07c6b8cd3ebf69de3ca10eb819f9c80c558c27375c0b189b780.For one thing, because she received almost everything she asked for, there was no negative change in her employment conditions; and one prep period cannot be seen as anything but a de minimis change.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0489-01; Unicode character offsets [53276:53475] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a0a3a1f4d2d4b07c6b8cd3ebf69de3ca10eb819f9c80c558c27375c0b189b780.As to the allegations of professional misconduct, Sosa alleges Defendants improperly accused her of missing work, which resulted in at least two disciplinary letters in her file.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0489-01; Unicode character offsets [55541:55719] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a0a3a1f4d2d4b07c6b8cd3ebf69de3ca10eb819f9c80c558c27375c0b189b780.Accepting that Sosa was treated differently with respect to these items, there is no allegation they affected her pay, are related to benefits or privileges of employment, or evidenced a demotion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0489-01; Unicode character offsets [57389:57585] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a0a3a1f4d2d4b07c6b8cd3ebf69de3ca10eb819f9c80c558c27375c0b189b780.Without an identifiable adverse employment action, Sosa's claims for race and skin color discrimination under § 1981 and § 1983 must be dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/368/0489-01; Unicode character offsets [58247:58393] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a0a3a1f4d2d4b07c6b8cd3ebf69de3ca10eb819f9c80c558c27375c0b189b780. |
| Mills v. Cellco Partnership — 376 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · 2019 — satisfied · triable (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; count: race-discrimination claim that the Trussville manager scheduled plaintiff and other African American employees for a disproportionate share of weekend closing shifts; subject: count=race-discrimination claim that the Trussville manager scheduled plaintiff and other African American employees for a disproportionate share of weekend closing shifts Scheduling claim only. The same section holds that coachings and unfulfilled threats of discipline were not adverse actions (@17693..18884) and treats denial of management training as an adverse action that Verizon did not dispute (@18885..19592); those theories have no block here. | disproportionate-weekend-closing-shifts-without-loss-of-pay | To qualify as adverse employment action, "the employer's action must impact the terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's job in a real and demonstrable way."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [12425:12593] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.By contrast, Ms. Mills alleges that her manager consistently scheduled her for weekend closing shifts, exhibiting a pattern of discrimination against her and other African American employees.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [14549:14740] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.Verizon has not pointed to anything in the record conclusively contradicting Ms. Mills's allegations that her manager favored white employees with preferable schedules.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [13073:13241] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.Though Ms. Mills's allegedly unfavorable schedule did not reduce her compensationSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [15972:16053] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e.So the court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Ms. Mills suffered adverse employment action by having to work more weekend closing shifts than her coworkers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/376/1228-01; Unicode character offsets [16454:16646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 aac4716beaea5795cd19fdca1752a6d6e1b07ba6871a7be5382f9cd4ba6fe57e. |
| Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 3d 224 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; theory: the lobby encounters impaired the contracted-for experience with the tenant; subject: theory=the lobby encounters impaired the contracted-for experience with the tenant 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. | racial-abuse-in-building-lobby-on-the-way-to-and-from-tenant-clinic-without-denial-of-access | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [45155:45347] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.Plaintiff was not prevented from entering or exiting Access at any point on either day.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [20039:20126] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [5135:5287] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [19472:19774] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b. |
| Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 3d 224 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; theory: the security contractor interfered with plaintiff's contract with a building tenant (the clinic); subject: theory=the security contractor interfered with plaintiff's contract with a building tenant (the clinic) | lobby-security-guard-with-no-authority-over-or-awareness-of-patients-contract-with-tenant-clinic | "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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [16498:16706] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [1617:1777] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [17526:17741] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.Plaintiff has thus failed to allege that UPS can be held liable for interference with Plaintiff's contract.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [18427:18534] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b. |
| 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. |
| Freeman v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi. — 927 F.3d 961 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded | discharge-of-probationary-worker | The District fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting "unsatisfactory performance."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0961-01; Unicode character offsets [2423:2516] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b8b5a3388cf320254eba34947ffe968fff6293d517feb963080c1db21c85f439. |
| Fields v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi. & Chad P. Weiden — 928 F.3d 622 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence | retirement-claimed-as-constructive-discharge-after-improvement-plans-and-mediation-without-discipline | The Board's opening position was that Fields could retire with a "do not hire" designation, preventing her from being rehired.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [2858:2984] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7.Based partly on Weiden's observations, Chicago Public Schools rated Fields's job performance for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as "developing," which ranks below a "proficient" rating.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [1357:1548] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7.And here, the mediation resulted in no punitive measures, and Weiden provided sworn testimony that he did not oppose Fields receiving no discipline because he wanted her performance to improve.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [9374:9567] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7.She retired in May 2016 without ever returning to work.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [3346:3401] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7.She also has no evidence that her working conditions were objectively intolerable.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [7868:7950] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7.The second occurs when an employer acts in a manner that would make clear to a reasonable employee that she will be immediately fired if she does not resign.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [7302:7459] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7.Fields cannot show that she was constructively discharged.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [7539:7597] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7.Fields also suggests that the negative performance reviews and performance improvement plans constitute adverse employment actions. She is incorrect.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0622-01; Unicode character offsets [9834:9983] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7ec7a61801e1d993e5372359ff01b2cc26028b4beb3d7228164155fae15c66c7. |
| Brown v. Kansas City Live, LLC — 931 F.3d 712 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / proceduralRestaurant purchase and racially charged removal are allegations underlying the later §1981 theory. The court decides claim preclusion only and never decides an impaired-contract element. | preclusion/same-incident-new-legal-theory | Brown's lawsuit stems from events that occurred at the Power and Light District in Kansas City, Missouri. After purchasing a few drinks at an outdoor bar, Brown sought to enter the bar's associated restaurant to use the bathroom. When he came out, three men told him he was trespassing and needed to leave. Brown alleges the men cursed at him, using racial slurs, and pushed Brown out of the restaurant. Brown then walked directly to two nearby police officers and stated he wanted to file a complaint. The officers detained Brown at a security guard office and eventually let him go, after giving him a ticket for trespassing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0712-01; Unicode character offsets [166:793] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c59c3c91c80ae5470a000d7244dc23669eed20217af913659eccc3dcaadd603f.As the judgment was issued by a Missouri court, Missouri res judicata law applies. See Brown v. St. Louis Police Dept. , 691 F.2d 393, 395-96 (8th Cir. 1982) ; see also Laase, 638 F.3d at 856 ("[T]he law of the forum that rendered the first judgment controls the res judicata analysis."). Under Missouri law "res judicata applies where (1) 'the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the decision was the final judgment on the merits, and (3) the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases.' " Bannum, Inc. v. City of St. Louis , 195 S.W.3d 541, 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Biermann v. United States , 67 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1060 (E.D. Mo. 1999) ). Res judicata bars relitigation from the same "operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing" and applies "to every point properly belonging to the subject matter of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at that time." Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield , 64 S.W.3d 315, 318 (Mo. 2002) (en banc) (quoting King Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints , 821 S.W.2d 495, 501 (Mo. 1991) (en banc)).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0712-01; Unicode character offsets [2910:4157] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c59c3c91c80ae5470a000d7244dc23669eed20217af913659eccc3dcaadd603f.Brown has asserted the same cause of action against the same party in federal court that he did in the state court, which had jurisdiction and entered a final judgment. Therefore, this suit is barred by res judicata.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0712-01; Unicode character offsets [6634:6850] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c59c3c91c80ae5470a000d7244dc23669eed20217af913659eccc3dcaadd603f. |
| Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. — 541 U.S. 369 (2004) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 — not reached (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural count: Hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, failure to transfer; subject: count=Hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, failure to transfer Classification of the alleged conduct as newly actionable after 1991 selects the limitations period. The undisputed allegation of an amended-statute violation is not a merits finding that discriminatory impairment occurred. | temporal-scope/postformation-employment | Specifically, the three classes of plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment, given an inferior employee status, and wrongfully terminated or denied a transfer in connection with the closing of the Chicago plant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_541.jsonl#/us/541/0369-01; Unicode character offsets [1054:1307] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d97f70cecae17686f7c93330009de0ceb4c140f8b8a03db4fdcddb1549f8eb41.The original version of the statute now codified at Rev. Stat. § 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, was enacted as § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. It was amended in minor respects in 1870 and recodified in 1874, see Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 168-169, n. 8 (1976), but its basic coverage did not change prior to 1991. As first enacted, § 1981 provided in relevant part that “all persons [within the jurisdiction of the United States] shall have the same right, in every State and Territory ... to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” 14 Stat. 27. We held in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164 (1989), that the statutory right “to make and enforce contracts” did not protect against harassing conduct that occurred after the formation of the contract. Under that holding, it is clear that petitioners’ hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, and refusal to transfer claims do not state violations of the original version of §1981. In 1991, however, Congress responded to Patterson by adding a new subsection to § 1981 that defines the term “ ‘make and enforce contracts’ ” to include the “termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U. S. C. § 1981(b). It is undisputed that petitioners have alleged violations of the amended statute. The critical question, then, is whether petitioners’ causes of action “ar[ose] under” the 1991 Act or under § 1981 as originally enacted.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_541.jsonl#/us/541/0369-01; Unicode character offsets [1997:3521] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d97f70cecae17686f7c93330009de0ceb4c140f8b8a03db4fdcddb1549f8eb41. |
| Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald — 546 U.S. 470 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsThe Court explains the reach of existing and proposed contract rights and Congress’s displacement of Patterson. It makes no independent finding that racial discrimination impaired McDonald’s own rights. | contract-scope/formation-and-postformation | Any claim brought under § 1981, therefore, must initially identify an impaired “contractual relationship,” § 1981(b), under which the plaintiff has rights. Such a contractual relationship need not already exist, because § 1981 protects the would-be contractor along with those who already have made contracts. We made this clear in Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160 (1976), which subjected defendants to liability under § 1981 when, for racially motivated reasons, they prevented individuals who “sought to enter into contractual relationships” from doing so, id., at 172 (emphasis added). We have never retreated from what should be obvious from reading the text of the statute: Section 1981 offers relief when racial discrimination blocks the creation of a contractual relationship, as well as when racial discrimination impairs an existing contractual relationship, so long as the plaintiff has or would have rights under the existing or proposed contractual relationship.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [6665:7639] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc.Nor has Congress indicated that we should. We held in Patterson that the prior version of § 1981 did “not apply to conduct which occurs after the formation of a contract and which does not interfere with the right to enforce established contract obligations.” 491 U. S., at 171. In 1991, Congress amended the statute, see 105 Stat. 1071, adding § 1981(b), which defines “make and enforce” to bring postformation conduct, including discriminatory termination, within the scope of § 1981. See Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U. S. 369, 383 (2004). But while Congress revised Patterson’s, exclusion of postformation conduct, it let stand Patterson’s focus upon contract obligations. In fact, it positively reinforced that element by including in the new § 1981(b) reference to a “contractual relationship.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [8244:9056] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Consistent with our prior case law, and as required by the plain text of the statute, we hold that a plaintiff cannot state a claim under §1981 unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes “to make and enforce.” Section 1981 plaintiffs must identify injuries flowing from a racially motivated breach of their own contractual relationship, not of someone else’s.
Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald — 546 U.S. 470 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (42usc1981: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
Consistent with our prior case law, and as required by the plain text of the statute, we hold that a plaintiff cannot state a claim under §1981 unless he has (or would have) rights under the existing (or proposed) contract that he wishes “to make and enforce.” Section 1981 plaintiffs must identify injuries flowing from a racially motivated breach of their own contractual relationship, not of someone else’s.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [14181:14591] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc.Section 1981 is not an omnibus remedy for all offensive conduct. The 1991 definition displaced Patterson’s restricted postformation coverage; do not revive that superseded limitation. Contract rights can be impaired without a separately proven state-law breach-of-contract tort.