Nigel S. Phillip, Bernard Schmidt, St. Patrick Reid, and Grant Gittens v. University of Rochester, Raymond Pipitone, and James Clukey
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
POOLER, Circuit Judge.
We are asked to decide whether the equal benefit clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 requires a showing of state action. Based primarily on the clear language of the statute, we hold that plaintiffs may sustain a claim for breach of the equal benefit clause without making a traditional state action showing. We caution, however, that this same statutory language constrains the breadth of the equal benefit clause. That is, plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendants, motivated by racial animosity, deprived or attempted to deprive plaintiffs of “the full and equal benefit” of a law…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Runyon v. McCrarySupreme Court of the United States · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by80 opinions
- Boykin v. KeyCorpCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- Iqbal v. HastyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Lynette Chapman v. The Higbee Company, D/B/A Dillard Department Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Koulkina v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Mazloum v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police DepartmentDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.