Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment.
Does 42 U.S.C. § 1981 create a cause of action in one not a party to a contract, but who sustained personal injuries as a result of a breach of that contract, where the breach was motivated by racial discrimination against him?
JWM Investments, Inc., a company wholly owned by Respondent John McDonald, entered into a contract with Petitioner Domino’s Pizza under which it the parties agreed that JVM would build and lease to Domino’s four restaurant buildings. After the relationship began to sour, McDonald, an African-American, demanded that Domino's perform their end of the bargain. Another petitioner Deborah Pear Phillips, employee of Domino's, refused to sign contractually required "estoppel certificates," and the general counsel for Domino's said that it would perform the contracts only if McDonald would agree to amend them, which he refused to do. McDonald claimed that Petitioners' decision to breach the contracts was motivated by racial discrimination and sued under 42 U.S.C § 1981, which protects the right to make and enforce contracts. Petitioners argue that McDonald does not have standing to sue because he was not personally a party to the contract. The Supreme Court will thus decide whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981 creates a cause of action in one who is not a party to a contract, but who sustained personal injuries as a result of a breach of that contract, where the breach was motivated by racial discrimination against him.
In the absence of a contractual relationship with the defendant, are allegations of personal injuries alone sufficient to confer standing on a plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981?
Domino's Pizza, Inc. ("Domino's") entered into four contracts with JWM Investments, Inc. ("JWM") under which JWM was to build restaurants and lease them to Domino's. Respondent John McDonald, an African-American, was the sole officer, director, and stockholder of JWM. Under the contract, Domino's was required to execute "estoppel certificates" if necessary for JWM to obtain financing for the restaurants. Deborah Pear Phillips, the real estate negotiator for Domino's and one of the petitioners, refused to sign the certificates.
Whether owners of rental properties may claim St. Paul city officials violated the Fair Housing Act by aggressively enforcing the City’s housing codes, which increased rental costs and reduced the supply of low-income housing whose renters are disproportionately African-American.
If such a claim is allowed, whether the appropriate test is the burden-shifting test used by the Eighth Circuit.
Thomas J. Gallagher, together with other owners and former owners of rental properties, sued the City of St. Paul, Minnesota for violating the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discriminatory housing practices. Gallagher claimed that the City’s aggressive and targeted enforcement of city housing codes against rental units reduced the availability of low-income rentals, with a disparate impact upon African-Americans. The Eighth Circuit held that Gallagher stated a valid FHA claim under the disparate impact theory. St. Paul appeals, arguing that, because the FHA requires evidence of discriminatory intent, Gallagher’s disparate impact claim is insufficient to establish a violation under the Act. Gallagher contends that, given the Court’s prior findings regarding disparate impact claims under the similarly-worded Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII, disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. The Supreme Court’s decision may affect the extent to which city officials can use ordinances, code enforcement actions, and other land-use regulations to regulate low-income neighborhoods.
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful "[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer ... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Respondents are owners of rental properties who argue that Petitioners violated the Fair Housing Act by "aggressively" enforcing the City of Saint Paul's housing code. According to Respondents, because a disproportionate number of renters are African-American, and Respondents rent to many African-Americans, requiring them to meet the housing code will increase their costs and decrease the number of units they make available to rent to African-American tenants. Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment for Petitioners, the Eighth Circuit held that Respondents should be allowed to proceed to trial because they presented sufficient evidence of a "disparate impact" on African-Americans.
The following are the questions presented:
Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?
If such claims are cognizable, should they be analyzed under the burden shifting approach used by three circuits, under the balancing test used by four circuits, under a hybrid approach used by two circuits, or by some other test?
This case concerns the proper interpretation of Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA” or “Act”). Respondents Thomas J. Gallagher, and other owners and former owners of rental properties in St. Paul, Minnesota (collectively, “Gallagher”), sued Petitioners Steve Magner and other city officials of St.
Bank Talk: Magner v. Gallagher: The Sunset for the Disparate Impact Claim (Jan. 18, 2012)
PLF Liberty Blog: Some reader comments on Magner v. Gallagher (Jan. 9, 2012)
Examiner.com: Court Brief in Magner v. Gallagher Seeks to Limit Racial Preferences, Bad Loans (Jan. 6, 2012)
1. Did the Louisiana Supreme Court misapply Miller-El v. Dretke by failing to address several factors supporting a claim of intentional discrimination by the prosecution in a capital trial, including comparisons to the O.J. Simpson trial, the elimination of all African-Americans from the jury by peremptory challenge, differences in the questioning of black and white prospective jurors, and a manner of excluding minority prospective jurors that indicated a pattern of discrimination?
2. Did the Louisiana Supreme Court erroneously apply the standard of review from Rice v. Collins, a federal habeas corpus case that employed a strict standard not applicable in the present case?
An all-white Louisiana jury found Allen Snyder, an African-American man, guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory strikes to exclude all black prospective jurors from the jury. The prosecution compared the case to the O.J. Simpson case -- before trial, to reporters, and during sentencing, to the jury. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Louisiana Supreme Court to reconsider its finding of no discriminatory jury selection in light of Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005). On remand, a narrow majority of the Louisiana Supreme Court reaffirmed its initial ruling. Snyder argues that the court misapplied Miller-El by failing to consider "all relevant circumstances" of the prosecution's discriminatory intent at trial and by according the trial court's findings an excessive degree of deference. The State of Louisiana contends that the court properly considered the case according to Miller-El's principles and rightfully excluded evidence not on the record from its analysis. The Supreme Court's decision will influence how future courts and litigants identify and prevent unlawful racial discrimination in jury selection.
