2 U.S.C. § 1981
Advance payments
During fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding fiscal year, following notification of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate 1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: John & Vincent Arduini Inc. v. Nynex, 129 F. Supp. 2d 162 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).
John & Vincent Arduini Inc. v. Nynex, 129 F. Supp. 2d 162 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). “Prima Facie Case Under 1¡, 2 U.S.C. § 1981 In order to establish a prima facie case under 42 U.”
Manbeck v. Micka, 640 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “Plaintiffs’ Jp2 U.S.C. § 1981 Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , all persons shall have the same right “to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings.”
Salemi v. Colorado Pub. Employees' Ret. Ass'n, 176 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D. Colo. 2016). “Retaliation under 4, 2 U.S.C. § 1981 Plaintiff claims that Defendants subjected her to adverse actions in retaliation for her verbal and written complaints.”
Davis v. Durham Mental Health Developmental Disabilities Substance Abuse Area Auth., 320 F. Supp. 2d 378 (M.D.N.C. 2004). “Whether Plaintiff States A Claim for Race Discrimination under Jp2 U.S.C. § 1981 I first address the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Durham Center for race discrimination in violation of 42 U.”
Brooks v. Firestone Polymers, LLC, 70 F. Supp. 3d 816 (E.D. Tex. 2014). “Consequently, Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims cannot be deemed to fall within the scope of the investigation that reasonably could have been expected to grow out. of their EEOC charges. As a result, Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before…”
Santiago v. City of Vineland, 107 F. Supp. 2d 512 (D.N.J. 2000). “Race Discrimination under 4, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1988 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).”
Osahar v. Postmaster Gen. of U.S. Postal Serv., 263 F. App'x 753 (11th Cir. 2008). “Claims Under J/ 2 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 Osahar argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claims brought pursuant to 42 U.”
Clemes v. Del Norte Cnty. Unified Sch. Dist., 843 F. Supp. 583 (N.D. Cal. 1994). “k2 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985 Mr. Ciernes’ claims under these provisions of Title 42 are similar to his claims under Title VI and Title IX, in that he does not allege that he is himself a member of a class directly protected by these provisions, but instead alleges that he…”
Weingarten Realty Investors v. Albertson's, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 825 (S.D. Tex. 1999). “2 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1982, and 8601-8619 Albertson’s maintains that Weingarten’s actions violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.”
Gail Hopkins v. Seagate, Formerly Magnetic Peripherals, Inc., a Delaware Corp. Doing Bus. in the State of Oklahoma, 30 F.3d 104 (10th Cir. 1994). “According to defendant’s human resources personnel, plaintiff failed to comply with company policy requiring her to provide documentation and information during her absence from work, and she failed to cooperate with defendant’s efforts to accomplish the requisite medical…”
Bernie Harry, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Lisa Normil, Deceased v. Wayne Marchant, M.D., Ali Bazzi, M.D., 237 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001). “2 U.S.C. § 1981 Harry next asserts that the district court erroneously ruled that the Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of action for violation of § 1981.”
Xiangyuan Zhu v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Bd., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Kan. 2005). “Standing Under^ 2 U.S.C. § 1981 Defendants assert that plaintiff has not alleged injury in fact under 42 U.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 1981(a) — 1 case
Witherspoon v. State Employees Credit Union (E.D.N.C. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.