A superior’s use of a racial epithet on one occasion constituted compelling evidence that a federal employee experienced a hostile work environment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
A civil rights plaintiff could not circumvent §1983’s two-year statute of limitations by suing for race discrimination under §1981, the 6th Circuit has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
A company manager may be individually liable under §1981 for causing the employer to retaliate against another employee on the basis of his race, the 7th Circuit has ruled.
A retaliation lawsuit brought under §1981 is subject to a four-year statute of limitations, not the state personal injury time-bar, the 9th Circuit has held in reversing a dismissal.
Three African-American couples couldn’t show that their home lender imposed certain conditions on their mortgages for discriminatory reasons, the 3rd Circuit has ruled in affirming a summary judgment.
A law firm that allegedly hired a black attorney as a “marketing tool” and then excluded her from her area of expertise can be sued for racial discrimination under §1981, but not for harassment, a U.S. District Court in North Carolina has ruled.
An employer’s failure to investigate an employee’s complaints of racial discrimination did not constitute an “adverse employment action” necessary to support a retaliation claim, the 2nd Circuit has ruled in affirming a summary judgment.
Employees can sue for retaliation based on allegations that they were subjected to workplace sabotage and punitive scheduling after supporting a co-worker’s claim of race discrimination, the 2nd Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
A hotel may be liable for race discrimination based on an allegation that it failed to follow up on repeated inquiries from an African-American couple seeking a venue for a wedding party, the 6th Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
Discriminatory surveillance by a retailer is insufficient to establish interference with a protected activity under §1981, the en banc 8th Circuit has ruled in reversing a panel decision.