|
Laws and Regulations, United States Code
42 U.S.C. § 1981: Title 42, Chapter 21, Sub-Chapter I, Section 1981
§1981. Equal rights under the law
 |
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some. |
Select any part of the text below to annotate and link to court cases. (Remember to sign in to receive credit for your contributions.)
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
For purposes of this section, the term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
|
|
8/31/2023 |
Rhode Island District Court |
1:23-cv-00359-MSM-PAS |
Hall et al v. South Kingstown Police Department et al |
|
|
|
8/29/2023 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:23-cv-07638-LAP |
Meyersburg v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC |
|
|
|
3/30/2023 |
California Northern District Court |
3:23-cv-01530-JCS |
Goode v. Tesla Inc. |
|
|
|
3/18/2022 |
California Northern District Court |
4:22-cv-01735-KAW |
Curley v. Google LLC |
|
|
|
2/8/2022 |
Massachusetts District Court |
1:22-cv-10202-JGD |
Czerwienski et al v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al |
|
|
|
2/1/2022 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:22-cv-00871 |
Flores v. The National Football League et al |
|
|
|
5/25/2021 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:21-cv-04692-RA |
Cooper v. Franklin Templeton et al |
|
|
|
4/20/2020 |
California Northern District Court |
3:20-cv-02731-VC |
ZEPEDA RIVAS et al v. JENNINGS et al |
|
|
|
11/27/2019 |
Missouri Eastern District Court |
4:19-cv-03159-RLW |
Bakhtiari v. eHarmony, Inc. et al |
|
|
|
5/9/2019 |
Pennsylvania Eastern District Court |
5:19-cv-02092-MAK |
Kennedy v. Walmart, Inc., et al |
|
|
|
5/3/2019 |
Massachusetts District Court |
1:19-cv-11044-PBS |
Rae et al v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts MBTA et al |
|
|
|
12/22/2018 |
Puerto Rico District Court |
3:18-cv-02000 |
Del Pozo-Robles v. Hernandez Rivera Law Offices CSP |
|
|
|
12/21/2018 |
Massachusetts District Court |
1:18-cv-12620 |
Liviz v. Supreme Court of the United State of America |
|
|
|
12/20/2018 |
Arizona District Court |
2:18-cv-04852 |
Fariss-Borello v. Scottsdale, City of |
|
|
|
12/19/2018 |
Illinois Southern District Court |
3:18-cv-02189 |
Dunkley v. AFSCME |
|
|
|
12/18/2018 |
District Of Columbia District Court |
1:18-cv-02987 |
LIU v. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY |
|
|
|
12/17/2018 |
Maryland District Court |
1:18-cv-03903 |
O'Briant v. Flavor & Fragrance Specialties |
|
|
|
12/17/2018 |
Illinois Northern District Court |
1:18-cv-08277 |
Calderon v. Village of Bridgeview, Illinois |
|
|
|
12/17/2018 |
Illinois Northern District Court |
1:18-cv-08270 |
Gillespie v. Aerotek, Inc. |
|
|
|
12/10/2018 |
Texas Southern District Court |
4:18-cv-04645 |
Shanmugavelandy v. University of Texas M.D. |
|
|
|
12/6/2018 |
Arizona District Court |
2:18-cv-04468 |
Garfias-Delgado v. Southwest Key Program Incorporated |
|
|
|
12/4/2018 |
Pennsylvania Eastern District Court |
2:18-cv-05219 |
STEWART v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. |
|
|
|
11/29/2018 |
Pennsylvania Eastern District Court |
2:18-cv-05160 |
ANSELMO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA |
|
|
|
11/29/2018 |
New York Eastern District Court |
2:18-cv-06805 |
Richards v. United Riverhead Terminal Inc. |
|
|
|
11/23/2018 |
Montana District Court |
1:18-cv-00167 |
Kramlich v. Billings Public Schools |
|
|
|
11/23/2018 |
Florida Southern District Court |
0:18-cv-62854 |
Dixon v. Rainbow USA, Inc. |
|
|
|
11/21/2018 |
New Jersey District Court |
3:18-cv-16362 |
PIUTA v. EQUINOX INSTITUTIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LP |
|
|
|
11/19/2018 |
Florida Middle District Court |
8:18-cv-02843 |
Gardner v. Mutz |
|
|
|
11/13/2018 |
New York Eastern District Court |
1:18-cv-06443 |
Roache v. Long Island Rail Road |
|
|
|
11/12/2018 |
Illinois Northern District Court |
1:18-cv-07479 |
Montenelli v. U-Haul Co. of Illinois, Inc. |
|
|
|
11/9/2018 |
California Central District Court |
2:18-cv-09530 |
Jane Doe v. University of Southern California |
|
|
|
11/7/2018 |
California Eastern District Court |
2:18-cv-02927 |
Steele v. County of Tehama |
|
|
|
11/1/2018 |
Florida Southern District Court |
1:18-cv-24591 |
Cohen v. Google L.L.C. |
|
|
|
10/29/2018 |
New York Western District Court |
6:18-cv-06776 |
Belton, M.D. v. Borg & Ide Imaging, P.C. |
|
|
|
10/22/2018 |
Florida Middle District Court |
2:18-cv-00668 |
Perry v. Rohoho, Inc. |
|
|
|
10/17/2018 |
Missouri Eastern District Court |
4:18-cv-01772 |
Terry v. Saint Louis Public Schools |
|
|
|
10/16/2018 |
Illinois Northern District Court |
1:18-cv-06954 |
Little v. JB Pritzker for Governor |
|
|
|
10/15/2018 |
Washington Western District Court |
2:18-cv-01510 |
Karrani v. JetBlue Airways Corporation |
|
|
|
10/10/2018 |
Texas Northern District Court |
3:18-cv-02727 |
Runnels v. BBVA Compass Bank |
|
|
|
10/10/2018 |
Texas Northern District Court |
3:18-cv-02725 |
Tucker v. BBVA Compass Bank |
|
|
|
10/1/2018 |
Arizona District Court |
2:18-cv-03076 |
McBeth v. Sixta |
|
|
|
9/28/2018 |
Illinois Central District Court |
2:18-cv-02249 |
Doe v. Urbana School District 116 |
|
|
|
9/26/2018 |
New York Southern District Court |
1:18-cv-08841 |
Maurice v. Plasco-Flaxman |
|
|
|
9/25/2018 |
Tennessee Eastern District Court |
3:18-cv-00411 |
Doe v. Ross University School of Medicine |
|
|
|
9/25/2018 |
District Of Columbia District Court |
1:18-cv-02213 |
URQUHART-BRADLEY v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC. |
|
|
|
9/21/2018 |
Virginia Western District Court |
6:18-cv-00078 |
Jenkins v. Miller |
|
|
|
9/17/2018 |
Tennessee Western District Court |
2:18-cv-02636 |
Larkin v. Day |
|
|
|
9/17/2018 |
Missouri Eastern District Court |
4:18-cv-01574 |
Davis v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri |
|
|
|
9/6/2018 |
Michigan Western District Court |
1:18-cv-01005 |
Brown v. Michigan State University |
|
|
|
9/5/2018 |
Florida Southern District Court |
1:18-cv-23630 |
Hollyfield v. Vitori Productions, Inc. |
|
|
Source
(R.S. §1977; Pub. L. 102–166, title I, §101, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1071.)
Codification
R.S. §1977 derived from act May 31, 1870, ch. 114, §16, 16 Stat. 144.
Section was formerly classified to section 41 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
Amendments
1991—Pub. L. 102–166 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
Effective Date of 1991 Amendment
Section 402 of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that:
“(a) In General.—Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act [see Short Title of 1991 Amendment note below] and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon enactment [Nov. 21, 1991].
“(b) Certain Disparate Impact Cases.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act shall apply to any disparate impact case for which a complaint was filed before March 1, 1975, and for which an initial decision was rendered after October 30, 1983.â€
Short Title of 1991 Amendment
Section 1 of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that: “This Act [enacting section 1981a of this title and sections 60l and 1201 to 1224 of Title 2, The Congress, amending this section and sections 1988, 2000e, 2000e–1, 2000e–2, 2000e–4, 2000e–5, 2000e–16, 12111, 12112, and 12209 of this title, and section 626 of Title 29, Labor, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 2000e and 2000e–4 of this title, and section 1a–5 of Title 16, Conservation] may be cited as the ‘Civil Rights Act of 1991’.â€
Short Title of 1976 Amendment
Pub. L. 94–559, which amended section 1988 of this title, is known as “The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976â€, see note set out under section 1988 of this title.
Severability
Section 401 of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that: “If any provision of this Act [see Short Title of 1991 Amendment note above], or an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances is held to be invalid, the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances, shall not be affected.â€
Congressional Findings
Section 2 of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that: “The Congress finds that—
“(1) additional remedies under Federal law are needed to deter unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace;
“(2) the decision of the Supreme Court in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) has weakened the scope and effectiveness of Federal civil rights protections; and
“(3) legislation is necessary to provide additional protections against unlawful discrimination in employment.â€
Purposes of 1991 Amendment
Section 3 of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that: “The purposes of this Act [see Short Title of 1991 Amendment note above] are—
“(1) to provide appropriate remedies for intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the workplace;
“(2) to codify the concepts of ‘business necessity’ and ‘job related’ enunciated by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and in the other Supreme Court decisions prior to Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989);
“(3) to confirm statutory authority and provide statutory guidelines for the adjudication of disparate impact suits under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); and
“(4) to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.â€
Legislative History for 1991 Amendment
Section 105(b) of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that: “No statements other than the interpretive memorandum appearing at Vol. 137 Congressional Record S 15276 (daily ed. Oct. 25, 1991) shall be considered legislative history of, or relied upon in any way as legislative history in construing or applying, any provision of this Act [see Short Title of 1991 Amendment note above] that relates to Wards Cove—Business necessity/cumulation/alternative business practice.â€
Construction of 1991 Amendment
Section 116 of title I of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that: “Nothing in the amendments made by this title [enacting section 1981a of this title and amending this section, sections 1988, 2000e, 2000e–1, 2000e–2, 2000e–4, 2000e–5, 2000e–16, 12111, and 12112 of this title, and section 626 of Title 29, Labor] shall be construed to affect court-ordered remedies, affirmative action, or conciliation agreements, that are in accordance with the law.â€
Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution
Section 118 of title I of Pub. L. 102–166 provided that: “Where appropriate and to the extent authorized by law, the use of alternative means of dispute resolution, including settlement negotiations, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, factfinding, minitrials, and arbitration, is encouraged to resolve disputes arising under the Acts or provisions of Federal law amended by this title [enacting section 1981a of this title and amending this section, sections 1988, 2000e, 2000e–1, 2000e–2, 2000e–4, 2000e–5, 2000e–16, 12111, and 12112 of this title, and section 626 of Title 29, Labor].â€
Executive Order No. 13050
Ex. Ord. No. 13050, June 13, 1997, 62 F.R. 32987, which established the President's Advisory Board on Race, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 13138, §3(e), Sept. 30, 1999, 64 F.R. 53880, formerly set out as a note under section 14 of the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
 |
Sorry, this feature requires a PlainSite Pro or Pro Se subscription.
|
|
|
