AND · 42usc1981:defendant-knowledge
Link knowledge to the relevant decisionmaker/defendant, not a conclusory reference to defendants collectively. Boxill dismissed because concrete adverse-action/causal allegations were missing.
Exact element source
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1981; Unicode character offsets [823:967] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5e5aa212ab2f30dd84c80b0b228057e2c583768ee608c391e0ac73d92e609577.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| knowledge/conclusory-collective-allegation | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | Judicial defendant-knowledge requirement for retaliation | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: O’Grady; count: Section 1981 retaliation; subject: party=O’Grady; count=Section 1981 retaliation The earlier knowledge discussion concerns First Amendment retaliation, but the §1981 section expressly incorporates that factual deficiency. No First Amendment motivating-factor rule is imported into §1981. | knowledge/conclusory-collective-allegation | Boxill alleges that "the Defendants knew" this letter was meant to "memorializ[e] complaints made" by her against O'Grady.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [2655:2777] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b.And Boxill has offered no plausible, non-conclusory facts to show that O'Grady was even aware of her complaints against him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [10664:10788] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b.To survive dismissal, Boxill must allege that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) her exercise of that activity was known by the Defendant; (3) the Defendant thereafter took an action that was materially adverse to her; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Laster v. City of Kalamazoo , 746 F.3d 714, 730 (6th Cir. 2014).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [14122:14517] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b.Boxill does allege that the "Defendants knew" the letter drafted about O'Grady's behavior was "memorializing complaints made" by her. But again, this vague, conclusory reference to "the Defendants" is not enough to make a plausible showing that O'Grady was aware of her complaints.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [19558:19839] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
To survive dismissal, Boxill must allege that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) her exercise of that activity was known by the Defendant; (3) the Defendant thereafter took an action that was materially adverse to her; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Laster v. City of Kalamazoo , 746 F.3d 714, 730 (6th Cir. 2014).
/f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
To survive dismissal, Boxill must allege that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) her exercise of that activity was known by the Defendant; (3) the Defendant thereafter took an action that was materially adverse to her; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the materially adverse action. Laster v. City of Kalamazoo , 746 F.3d 714, 730 (6th Cir. 2014).Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0510-01; Unicode character offsets [14122:14517] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a74c128916e884a9f9a943b6da6821746f2cb0222551b7ea22ce8541aac7705b.Link knowledge to the relevant decisionmaker/defendant, not a conclusory reference to defendants collectively. Boxill dismissed because concrete adverse-action/causal allegations were missing.