A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- AND Judicial but-for causation of contractual injury
This judicial requirement is not verbatim statutory language. Comcast rejected a motivating-factor pleading rule and importing Title VII’s mixed-motive standard. But-for does not mean race must be the sole cause. The official opinion is an external annotation, not a fabricated local IR rule quote.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 20 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/922/0219-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — applied/merits; /f3d/927/0081-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — applied/merits
- AND Contract and retaliation scope with noncontract clauses identified
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Formation performance termination or contractual benefits
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 The 1991 definition displaced Patterson’s restricted postformation coverage; do not revive that superseded limitation.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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) commercial Retail, service and other contracting outside employment; identify the actual proposed or existing contractual opportunity. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot contract-scope/formation-and-postformation 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/546/0470-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — rule-announced/merits
employment Hiring, promotion or discharge impairing the employment relationship; a hostile-environment theory must also satisfy hostile-environment under the conditional constraint below. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot formation Discriminatory refusal to enter an available proposed contract. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot performance Discriminatory terms, performance, modification, benefits or termination under subsection (b). 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot preclusion/same-incident-new-legal-theory 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/931/0712-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — background/procedural
temporal-scope/postformation-employment 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/541/0369-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 — applied/procedural
- AND Judicial defendant-knowledge requirement for retaliation
Link knowledge to the relevant decisionmaker/defendant, not a conclusory reference to defendants collectively. Boxill dismissed because concrete adverse-action/causal allegations were missing.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count 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 01 /f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not - AND Judicial hostile-environment threshold and attribution
Castleberry (Third Circuit) applies severe OR pervasive harassment, actual detrimental effect on plaintiff, objective effect on a reasonable person in like circumstances, and a basis to hold the employer responsible. These judicial requirements elaborate the contractual-conditions hook. A sufficiently severe single incident can qualify; no rule requires both severity and pervasiveness. The 2017 opinion's general Title VII analogy is read subject to Comcast for ultimate §1981 racial causation.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- DEFENSE Claim-specific limitations and accrual
Bryant’s hostile-environment continuing-violation rule requires a component act in time; it does not revive all time-barred discrete employment decisions. No Title VII EEOC-charge prerequisite is imported into a direct §1981 claim.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) limitations/continuing-hostile-environment 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/919/0520-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
limitations/post1990-created-rights 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/541/0369-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 — applied/procedural
- AND Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed 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.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count 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 10 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 01 /us/546/0470-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not - AND Nongovernmental impairment
Subsection (c) reaches private racial discrimination. A contractual discrimination action against a private defendant does not require state action; corporate attribution and personal participation remain necessary to identify a liable defendant.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Opposition to racial impairment of contract rights
CBOCS holds that advocacy for another person’s racially impaired contractual rights can support retaliation. The word retaliation is absent from §1981’s text; protection is authoritative judicial interpretation, not a statutory quotation. A generic workplace complaint unrelated to race/§1981 rights does not automatically qualify.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) protected-advocacy/coworker-racial-dismissal 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/553/0442-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 — rule-announced/merits
- AND Persons protected by equal contractual rights
The text protects all persons within U.S. jurisdiction and equal rights enjoyed by white citizens; it is not limited to minority plaintiffs or employees of Title VII-sized employers. Race-based ancestry/ethnicity discrimination may qualify; sex, age or religion alone is not a §1981 contract claim. Citizenship/alienage applications and specific noncontract clauses require separate analysis.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement
Intentional race discrimination is required; disparate impact by itself is insufficient. Nelson supplies alternative direct/circumstantial proof and pretext framework in the employment setting, not a universal comparator pleading requirement. Its 2019 formulation is read subject to Comcast’s 2020 but-for rule.
6 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) circumstantial-proof/comparative-qualifications 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/918/0990-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not circumstantial-proof/comparator-discipline 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/922/0219-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied circumstantial-proof/council-ratification 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/935/0633-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not circumstantial-proof/preselection-and-job-criteria 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/918/0990-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not circumstantial-proof/same-site-different-race-comparator 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/927/0081-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied circumstantial-proof/shifting-termination-explanations 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/922/0219-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied - AND Compensatory equitable punitive and fee remedies
Section 1981 remedies are judicially developed; punitive damages require additional culpability and constitutional proportionality. Section 1981a(b)(3) employment caps do not cap §1981 awards; §1981a(b)(4) preserves §1981 relief. State/municipal defendants raise distinct immunity/remedial limits under §1983.
3 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) attorney-fees/prior-awards-support-hourly-rate 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/919/0520-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied parallel-remedies/title-vii-independent-section1981 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/553/0442-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 — applied/procedural
punitive-damages/managerial-reckless-indifference 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/919/0520-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied punitive-damages/nominal-compensation-proportionality 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/919/0520-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/553/0442-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 — applied/merits
- AND Judicial material-adversity requirement for retaliation
Boxill’s pinned retaliation test requires materially adverse action. Apply the reasonable-worker deterrence inquiry in employment; petty slights alone do not satisfy it. Retaliation does not require proof that the challenged action was itself motivated by the plaintiff’s race.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Judicial causation requirement for retaliatory injury
Require a causal connection and the applicable ultimate but-for standard; knowledge plus temporal sequence alone does not necessarily prove causation. Boxill is a pleading decision and does not hold that its prima facie articulation replaces the ultimate burden.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) retaliation/undifferentiated-officials 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not - AND Judicial section 1983 remedial route for state-law impairment
Boxill recognizes §1983 as the vehicle even though direct §1981 claims against state actors fail. Ridgell’s city verdict failed because the only alleged discriminatory official was exonerated on that record; do not turn that outcome into immunity whenever any individual wins for any reason.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) municipal-liability/sole-discriminator-exonerated 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/935/0633-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not state-remedy/section1983-pleaded 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/935/0510-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/927/0081-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — applied/merits
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
42usc1981:private-contract-discrimination
protected-person & own-contract & contractual-impairment & racial-intent & but-for-causation & private-actorCore §1981(a)-(c) contractual equality claim against nongovernmental discrimination. Plaintiff must identify its own existing or proposed contract rights; race must cause the actionable impairment. Pleading and proof burdens remain with plaintiff.
42usc1981:state-contract-discrimination
protected-person & own-contract & contractual-impairment & racial-intent & but-for-causation & state-remedial-routeA §1981 right impaired under color of state law is enforced through §1983 under Jett and the cited circuit cases. §1983 causation, personal involvement, municipal policy/custom and immunities must be satisfied where applicable; §1981(c) does not eliminate them.
42usc1981:retaliation
protected-person & protected-activity & defendant-knowledge & retaliatory-adversity & retaliatory-causation & (private-actor | state-remedial-route)CBOCS recognizes retaliation for advocacy of protected racial contract rights, including another person’s rights. Do not require plaintiff to be the original victim of the opposed racial discrimination; liability still requires its own retaliatory injury.
Constraints
A hostile-environment theory must satisfy the additional judicial harassment test.
Applies only to the hostile-environment variant of contractual-impairment, not every hiring, promotion, discharge or commercial-contract dispute. Keep the core own-contract, racial-intent and Comcast but-for requirements; state actors also require the state-remedial-route. Employer attribution depends on the actor and controlling law, not automatic respondeat superior for municipalities.