AND · 42usc1981:own-contract
Domino’s Pizza requires plaintiff’s own actual or proposed rights, not merely injury through a shareholder’s or agent’s relationship with a contracting corporation. The requirement applies to the direct contract-discrimination claim; CBOCS separately protects advocacy for another person’s contract rights.
Exact element source
to make and enforce contractsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1981; Unicode character offsets [176:205] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5e5aa212ab2f30dd84c80b0b228057e2c583768ee608c391e0ac73d92e609577.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| contract-context/construction-client-loss | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/927/0081-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — applied/merits | |
| corporate-separateness/shareholder-agent-contract-rights | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/546/0470-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/927/0081-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 | Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsEmployment, company ownership, client losses, and contract suits supply retrieval context, but the court does not independently resolve whose specific contractual rights each plaintiff holds. No automatic shareholder standing is inferred. | contract-context/construction-client-loss | NY Drilling and 888 Consulting have also become targets of Burkart's animosity, due both to their racial composition and to their close ties to Hu. NY Drilling is a construction company that employed Hu until 2015, when Hu formed his own construction company, 888 Consulting. Both NY Drilling and 888 Consulting are owned and controlled by Asians, and they frequently work with each other on construction jobs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0081-01; Unicode character offsets [3275:3685] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2b6850092309161992d84bbd7dae9f631604a5d0bf287ea3926a778ade038185.These and other enforcement actions are taking a financial toll on the plaintiffs. Burkart's violations have burdened the plaintiffs with fines, compliance costs, and legal fees. Clients are firing the plaintiffs due to jobsite delays resulting from DOB audits and stop work orders, and some are suing the plaintiffs for breaches of contract. The plaintiffs are also losing prospective business, because of Hu's reputation as a lightning rod for DOB inspections and sanctions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0081-01; Unicode character offsets [6527:7003] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2b6850092309161992d84bbd7dae9f631604a5d0bf287ea3926a778ade038185. |
| /us/546/0470-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 | Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: McDonald personally; theory: Direct contract discrimination; subject: party=McDonald personally; theory=Direct contract discrimination The legal defect is absence of McDonald’s own contractual rights, not failure to allege racial animus or personal injury. Corporation and agent remain distinct despite his negotiating and signing the contracts. | corporate-separateness/shareholder-agent-contract-rights | Respondent John McDonald, a black man, is the sole shareholder and president of JWM Investments, Inc. (JWM), a corporation organized under Nevada law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [307:457] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc.JWM and Domino’s entered into several contracts under which JWM was to construct four restaurants in the Las Vegas aréa, which would be leased to Domino’s.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [683:838] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc.The gravamen of McDonald’s complaint was that Domino’s had broken its contracts with JWM because of racial animus toward McDonald, and that the breach had harmed McDonald personally by causing him “to suffer monetary damages and damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and humiliation.” Id., at 16.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [2676:2986] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc.Any claim brought under § 1981, therefore, must initially identify an impaired “contractual relationship,” § 1981(b), under which the plaintiff has rights.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [6665:6820] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc.McDonald’s complaint does identify a contractual relationship, the one between Domino’s and JWM. But it is fundamental corporation and agency law — indeed, it can be said to be the whole purpose of corporation and agency law — that the shareholder and contracting officer of a corporation has no rights and is exposed to no liability under the corporation’s contracts. McDonald now makes light of the law of corporations and of agency — arguing, for instance, that because he “negotiated, signed, performed, and sought to enforce the contract,” Domino’s was wrong to “insist that [the contract] somehow was not his ‘own.’ ” Brief for Respondent 4. This novel approach to the law contradicts McDonald’s own experience. Domino’s filed a proof of claim against JWM during its corporate bankruptcy; it did not proceed against McDonald personally. The corporate form and the rules of agency protected his personal assets, even though he “negotiated, signed, performed, and sought to enforce” contracts for JWM. The corporate form and the rules of agency similarly deny him rights under those contracts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_546.jsonl#/us/546/0470-01; Unicode character offsets [9057:10154] (end exclusive); SHA-256 08aa6e7552f7114976fd783e4331bf60b60b9557dab0d3e972d66f22ec4c52bc. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
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.
/us/546/0470-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
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.Domino’s Pizza requires plaintiff’s own actual or proposed rights, not merely injury through a shareholder’s or agent’s relationship with a contracting corporation. The requirement applies to the direct contract-discrimination claim; CBOCS separately protects advocacy for another person’s contract rights.
not-required
A fully executed contract before a discriminatory refusal to contract.
No source quotation recorded.