Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media
Issues
Does a plaintiff state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in the absence of but-for causation by alleging that racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the defendant’s refusal to contract?
This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether claims under Section 1981 can survive absent a showing that race was the but-for cause of the plaintiff’s harm. Here, NAAAOM sued Comcast for racially discriminating against ESN’s network by refusing to enter into a contract with them. Comcast argues that a plaintiff cannot successfully plead race discrimination if race was not the but-for cause—or the actual cause—of the refusal to contract. NAAAOM counters that the correct causation standard is a “motivating factor” or “mixed-motives” approach in which racial discrimination need only be one factor in establishing a claim under Section 1981. This case’s outcome could affect how Section 1981 and Title VII claims are brought by marginalized communities and how employers will allocate resources to handle litigation.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fails in the absence of but-for causation.
Entertainment Studios (“ESN”) is a media company with operating segments in television networks, production, and distribution. See Brief for Petitioner, Comcast Corporation at 5. In order to operate, ESN relies on cable operators to carry their content to ESN’s paid subscribers. Id.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Adam Liptak: Supreme Court to Hear Racial Discrimination Case Against Comcast, New York Times (June 10, 2019)
- Tracy Jan: Civil rights groups say Comcast is trying to weaken a key protection against racial discrimination, The Boston Globe (October 2, 2019).
- Valerie Russ & Bob Fernandez: Comcast lawsuit in Supreme Court could cause ‘irreparable harm’ to minority protections, NAACP warns, The Philadelphia Inquirer (October 2, 2019).