Employment Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

116 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Eli Perkins, Jr. v. Hendrickson Mfg. Co. & Local 4336
  610 F.2d 469· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's § 1981 claim was time-barred because it was filed more than five years after the cause of action accrued, and the Illinois savings statute did not apply.
• Copley v. Bax Global, Inc.
  80 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2000-01-26 ·cited 3×
  An at-will employee can bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 if state law recognizes at-will employment as a contractual relationship. Statements indicating a desire for a manager of a specific ethnicity, combined with a prompt replacement by someone of that ethnicity, can consti
• Robinson v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co.
  701 F. Supp. 208· S.D. Fla.· 1988-11-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that summary judgment is granted for § 1981 claims due to statute of limitations, but denied for Rene-Fitzgerald's Title VII claim due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding the posting of EEOC notices.
• Robinson v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co.
  685 F. Supp. 233· S.D. Fla.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 3×
  Plaintiffs are not precluded from asserting claims under section 1981 based on the same facts that support their claims under Title VII.
• FEW v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.
  845 F.2d 123· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision because the trial judge's findings of fact, though not entirely convincing to the concurring judge, were not clearly erroneous given the trial court's superior opportunity to assess witness credibility.
• Robinson v. Adams
  830 F.2d 128· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination, which requires the employer to know the applicant's race, and that general population statistics are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact.
• Hebert v. Monsanto Co. & Tex. City
  682 F.2d 1111· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, limiting the scope of the Title VII class action to issues of employment discrimination in the trucking department related to overtime work assignment.
• Jefferson v. H. K. Porter Co.
  648 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellants' claims were time-barred because the prior litigation did not toll the statute of limitations for the § 1981 claim, and the Title VII claims were conceded to be time-barred.
• Underwood v. Jefferson Mem'l Hosp.
  639 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prima facie case of employment discrimination requires consideration of all evidence, not just the plaintiff's, and that the district court's finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous.
• Boutros v. Canton Reg'l Transit Auth.
  997 F.2d 198· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-30 ·cited 1×
  National origin harassment alone is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; such harassment must rise to the level of a hostile work environment to be actionable.
• Colston v. Pingree
  498 F. Supp. 327· N.D. Fla.· 1980-07-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or disparate impact under Title VII and that his § 1981 claims were time-barred.
• Austrum v. Fed. Cleaning Contractors, Inc.
  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77943· S.D. Fla.· 2016-06-03
  The court denied the defendant's motion for partial judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to award them.
• Perry v. Orange Cnty.
  341 F. Supp. 2d 1197· M.D. Fla.· 2004-08-27
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing defendants, but denied sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel personally, finding their conduct did not rise to the level of contempt.