Cbocs West, Inc. v. Humphries

Summary

The Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 encompasses claims of retaliation, deciding the question principally on stare decisis grounds: Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, as interpreted in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, recognized retaliation claims under the sister statute § 1982; the Court has long construed §§ 1981 and 1982 alike; Congress's 1991 amendments superseded Patterson v. McLean Credit Union and restored pre-Patterson law, which included retaliation claims; and the courts of appeals have uniformly so interpreted § 1981 since 1991. The Court rejected CBOCS's arguments based on the statute's text, the absence of express antiretaliation language in the 1991 amendments, overlap with Title VII, and the status/conduct distinction drawn in Burlington Northern and Domino's Pizza. The Seventh Circuit's judgment allowing Humphries's § 1981 retaliation claim to proceed was affirmed. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented, arguing that § 1981's text prohibits only racial discrimination, that retaliation is conduct-based rather than status-based, and that Sullivan was merely a third-party standing case.