Skip to main content

U.S. Supreme Court Establishes Claimants Must Establish “But For” Causation in Section 1981 Race Discrimination Claims


Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media - United States Supreme Court


Facts:  Entertainment Studios Network (“ESN”) is an African American owned television network operator.  ESN wanted to have its channels carried by Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”), however Comcast refused to do so.  Comcast based its reasoning on a claim that there was a lack of programming demand, bandwidth constraints, and a preference among its customers for programming that was not offered by ESN.

ESN and the National Association of African American-Owned Media sued Comcast on the grounds that Comcast had violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act.  (This portion of the Civil Rights Act guarantees “[a]ll persons...the same right...to make and enforce contracts...as is enjoyed by white citizens.”  Comcast moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the claimants had failed to plausibly show that but for racial animus, Comcast would have contracted with ESN.  The district court granted Comcast’s motion.  An appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed and the Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that ESN needed to only plead facts which plausibly showed that race played “some role” in Comcast’s decision making process.  Under this standard, the Court of Appeals held that ESN had met its burden and had established a viable claim against Comcast.  An appeal to the United States Supreme Court followed.

Holding:  At the outset of the opinion, the Court recognized that it has been well established that a claimant that seeks relief for a defendant’s wrongful action must show that he/she would not have been harmed if not for the defendant’s action.  In reviewing the language of Section 1981, the Court reasoned that the statue followed the general rule requiring “but for” causation.  The Court was unswayed by the argument of claimants that the “motivating factor” standard from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should control.  As the Court noted, there was “not a shred of evidence” that Congress intended to use such a standard when analyzing a Section 1981 claim.  Of note, when Congress added the “motivating factor” standard to Title VII in 1991, Congress also amended Section 1981 but chose not to add the “motivating factor” standard to that statute.

Judgment:  In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a claimant that alleges race discrimination under the Civil Rights Act bears the burden of showing race was the “but for” cause for the claimant’s injury and that burden remains constant throughout the course of the litigation.

The Takeaway:  While this case is not centered on an employment law claim, it does shape the analysis of employment discrimination claims going forward.  In employment law related cases, claimants often raise race discrimination claims under both Section 1981 and Title VII.  Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, the same burden of proof was applied to race discrimination claims under both Section 1981 and Title VII.  As a result of the ruling in this case, while the burden of proof on the claimant in a Title VII cases requires the claimant still show that race was a “motivating factor” in a defendant’s actions, a Section 1981 claimant must now establish that race was the “but for” cause of the injury.  For those that routinely deal with race discrimination claims, it would be a good idea to make note of the Supreme Court’s ruling here as the burden of proof has now taken on a much different scope going forward for Section 1981 claims.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Gorsuch

Date:  March 23, 2020

Opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1171_4425.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more