Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: CAC Reacts to Court’s Discrimination Ruling

“Racial discrimination can infect the contract formation process, and that isn’t altered simply because those contract negotiations ultimately would have failed based on other grounds; the other grounds do not serve as a disinfectant.” — CAC President Elizabeth Wydra

WASHINGTON – On news this morning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in  Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc., Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra said: 

We are disappointed by today’s ruling by the Supreme Court. We are concerned that requiring a showing of but-for causation for these sorts of discrimination claims ignores not only the text and history of the statute, but also the reality of how racial discrimination functions in workplaces across this nation. As we explained in a brief filed on behalf of Members of Congress, the plain text of Section 1981 does not require a showing of but-for causation, unlike other statutes which contain causal phrases like “because of” and “results from.” Racial discrimination can infect the contract formation process, and that isn’t altered simply because those contract negotiations ultimately would have failed based on other grounds; the other grounds do not serve as a disinfectant.  

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American–Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc.https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/comcast-corp-v-national-association-of-african-american-owned-media-and-entertainment-studios-networks-inc/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 27, 2020

#PurpleChairChat Episode 4: Free Speech and Equality in the Digital Age

By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes
Civil and Human Rights
May 21, 2020

RELEASE: NEW ISSUE BRIEF: Speech and Its Relationship to Equality: Constitutional Values in the Digital Age

“When confronting lies, hate, and harmful propaganda online—which we can expect to reach a fever...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
May 21, 2020

ISSUE BRIEF: Speech and Its Relationship to Equality: Constitutional Values in the Digital Age

Understanding the constitutional duty to strike a balance between speech and equality can help inform...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 8, 2020

The Contraceptive Mandate Returns to the Court for a Third Time

Since President Trump entered office, his Administration has relentlessly sought to undermine the Patient Protection...
By: Rebecca Damante
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania; Donald J. Trump v. Pennsylvania

In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court is considering whether agency rules, which provide an unconditional religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement to not-for-profit,...
Civil and Human Rights
February 29, 2020

Justices to hear first major abortion case of Trump era

The Hill
Measures like Louisiana’s are simply “arbitrary ways to make it harder for patients to obtain...
By: David H. Gans, By John Kruzel