CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries
170 L. Ed. 2d 864, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 4516, 553 U.S. 442 (2008)
Rule of Law:
42 U.S.C. § 1981, which guarantees all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens, also provides a cause of action for retaliation against an individual who complains about racial discrimination that violates the statute.
Facts:
- Hedrick G. Humphries, a black man, was an assistant manager at a restaurant owned by CBOCS West, Inc. (Cracker Barrel).
- Humphries complained to management that another assistant manager had dismissed a different black employee, Venus Green, for race-based reasons.
- Subsequently, CBOCS West, Inc. terminated Humphries' employment.
- Humphries alleged that his termination was in retaliation for his complaints about the racially discriminatory firing of his colleague.
Procedural Posture:
- Hedrick Humphries filed a charge with the EEOC and, after receiving a 'right to sue' letter, sued CBOCS West, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for violations of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The District Court dismissed Humphries' Title VII claims for procedural reasons.
- The District Court then granted summary judgment to CBOCS on Humphries' § 1981 claims for direct discrimination and retaliation.
- Humphries, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CBOCS, as appellee, on the direct discrimination claim but reversed the summary judgment on the retaliation claim, remanding the case for trial.
- CBOCS West, Inc. petitioned for, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari to decide the retaliation question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which guarantees all persons the right to make and enforce contracts without regard to race, encompass a claim for retaliation against an individual who complained about racial discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 encompasses claims for retaliation. This conclusion is strongly supported by stare decisis and the Court's long history of interpreting § 1981 and its sister statute, § 1982, in a similar fashion. The Court's precedent in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., which interpreted § 1982 to cover retaliation, is controlling given the common origins and purposes of the two statutes. When Congress amended § 1981 in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to supersede the narrow holding of Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, it intended to restore the broad, pre-Patterson interpretation of the statute, which was understood to include retaliation claims, as evidenced by the legislative history. The argument that this interpretation creates an improper overlap with Title VII fails because Congress intended for the remedies to be 'separate, distinct, and independent,' with Title VII supplementing, not supplanting, § 1981.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not encompass claims for retaliation. The plain text of § 1981 prohibits discrimination based on racial status, whereas retaliation is a response to an individual's conduct. An employer who retaliates against any employee, regardless of race, for complaining about discrimination does not violate the statute's guarantee of the 'same right' as 'white citizens.' The majority's reliance on stare decisis is misplaced because Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. was a third-party standing case, not a retaliation case, and its erroneous interpretation should not be extended. By implying a cause of action for retaliation that Congress did not write into the statute, the Court ignores the distinction between status-based discrimination and conduct-based retaliation, rendering superfluous the explicit anti-retaliation provisions Congress has included in other civil rights laws.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Acts provide broad protection against not only direct discrimination but also retaliation for opposing such discrimination. By affirming that § 1981 includes retaliation claims, the Court provides plaintiffs with a powerful alternative to Title VII, which has stricter procedural requirements and a shorter statute of limitations. The ruling reinforces the principle that § 1981 and § 1982 are to be interpreted in parallel, suggesting that judicial interpretations of one statute will likely apply to the other. This case highlights the enduring force of stare decisis in statutory interpretation, particularly where Congress has legislated in the area without overturning the Court's longstanding precedents.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries (2008)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"