AND · 42usc1981:catalogue-scope
The displayed title and formulas cover racial contractual impairment, including conditional hostile environment, and retaliation. Subsection (a) separately protects litigation/evidence participation, equal legal protection of persons/property, and equal punishment/exactions; those noncontract theories and alienage claims are not decomposed here. The own-contract requirement in these formulas is not a declaration that the quoted noncontract rights are absent from the statute.
Exact element source
to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1981; Unicode character offsets [207:499] (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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 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 · law (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 3d 224 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2019 — not · law (42usc1981: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Contract and retaliation scope with noncontract clauses identified | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law | equal-benefit-clause-claim-resting-only-on-a-municipal-anti-discrimination-ordinance | 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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [21420:21733] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [22919:23078] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b.Accordingly, it concludes that Plaintiff cannot base a cause of action under Section 1981 on the violation of a law of New York City.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/385/0224-01; Unicode character offsets [24385:24518] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f29c44f2016756282164a32fb21b2c74eb5c6b0c427966477adcbf86cf6b918b. |