Document: 546 U.S. 470 (2006) DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., ET al. v. McDONALD No. 04-593. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 6, 2005. Decided February 22, 2006. *471 Maureen E. Mahoney argued the cause for petitioners. With her on briefs was J. Scott Ballenger. Allen Lichtenstein respondent. him brief were David T. Goldberg, Eric Schnapper, and Pamela S. Karlan.[*] *472 JUSTICE SCALIA delivered opinion Court. We decide whether a plaintiff who lacks any rights under an existing contractual relationship with defendant, has not been prevented from entering into such relationship, may bring suit Rev. Stat. § 1977, 42 U.S.C. 1981. I Respondent John McDonald, black man, is sole shareholder president JWM Investments, Inc. (JWM), corporation organized Nevada law. He sued petitioners (collectively Domino's) in District Nevada, claiming violations The allegations complaint, which present purposes we assume to be true, as follows. Domino's entered several contracts construct four restaurants Las Vegas area, would leased Domino's. After first restaurant completed, agent Debbie Pear refused execute estoppel certificates required by facilitate JWM's bank financing. between parties further deteriorated when persuaded Valley Water change its records show Domino's, rather than JWM, owner land had acquired construction. McDonald go prove ownership land. In course what apparently many fruitless discussions *473 Pear, "explained that he intended see [the contracts] through completion," even though made clear unless agreed back out suffer serious consequences. App. Pet. Cert. 12-13. At one point said "`I don't like dealing you people anyway,'" refusing specify she meant "`you people.'" Id., at 13. threatened use attorneys "bury" if should sue. Ibid. ultimately remained uncompleted. least part because failed contracts, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. trustee bankruptcy estate initiated adversary proceeding against breach contract. For whatever reason, chose assert 1981 claim alleging interference right make enforce contracts. breach-of-contract settled $45,000, gave complete release. Consequently, no claims arising same episode could pursued behalf.[1] While proceedings still ongoing, his personal capacity. gravamen McDonald's complaint broken racial animus toward harmed personally causing "to monetary damages pain suffering, emotional distress, humiliation." 16. demanded discharge "obligations have received, but discriminatory *474 practices, including, limited front pay, pay other lost benefits," well "compensatory pecuniary losses, including mental anguish, humiliation," punitive damages. 17. motion dismiss failure state claim. It asserted party contract granted motion. noted "rel[ied] basic proposition separate legal entity stockholders officers," id., concluded "standing claim" "a or step shoes personally," 7 (citing Guides, Ltd. Yarmouth Group Property Management, Inc., 295 F.3d 1065, 1072-1073 (CA10 2002)). Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed. "injury suffered only corporation" permit action. 107 Fed. Appx. 18 (2004). But relying earlier decision Gomez Alexian Bros. Hospital San Jose, 698 F.2d 1019, 1021-1022 (1983), there are "injuries distinct corporation," nonparty nonetheless Appx., 18-19. acknowledged this approach set it apart Circuits. certiorari. 544 998 (2005). II Among statutes combat discrimination, 1981, originally 1 Civil Rights Act 1866, 14 27, specific function: protects equal "[a]ll persons within jurisdiction States" "make contracts" without respect race. *475 1981(a). statute currently defines "includ[e] making, performance, modification, termination enjoyment all benefits, privileges, terms, conditions relationship." 1981(b). argues must read give action "made enforced JWM. On reading text, "[i]f deal salesman pepperoni manufacturer black, violate section behalf principal." Brief 12. think not. guaranteed insignificant act someone else's contractingany more amanuensis writing agreement, thus "make" sense. Rather, rightdenied some States blacks, denied common law childrento receive one's own behalf. Common usage alone enough establish this, text makes meaning doubly speaking enforce" When 1866 drafted, known "[i]n general mere agent, beneficial interest principal, cannot support thereon." Livermore, A Treatise Law Principal Agent 215 (1818).[2] *476 Any brought therefore, initially identify impaired "contractual relationship," 1981(b), rights.[3] Such need already exist, would-be contractor along those Runyon McCrary, 427 160 (1976), subjected defendants liability when, racially motivated reasons, they individuals "sought enter relationships" doing so, 172 (emphasis added). never retreated obvious statute: Section offers relief discrimination blocks creation impairs so long proposed relationship. Absent requirement himself become strange remedial provision designed fight noxious forms, hurt produced somehow connected somebody's unboundedor rather, peculiarly boundedway. See, e. g., Patterson McLean Credit Union, 491 164, 176 (1989); Burnett Grattan, 468 42, 44, n. 2 (1984); General *477 Building Contractors Assn., Pennsylvania, 458 375, 396 (1982). Nor Congress indicated should. held prior version did "not apply conduct occurs after formation does interfere established obligations." U.S., 171. 1991, amended statute, 105 1071, adding postformation conduct, termination, scope See Jones R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 369, 383 while revised Patterson's exclusion let stand focus upon obligations. fact, positively reinforced element new 1981(b) reference fundamental agency lawindeed, can whole purpose lawthat contracting officer exposed corporation's now light corporations agencyarguing, instance, "negotiated, signed, performed, sought contract," wrong "insist contract] `own.'" 4. This novel contradicts experience. proof during corporate bankruptcy; proceed personally. form rules protected assets, similarly deny *478 As alternative ignoring law, proposes test standing: person "actual target" loses benefit otherwise inured impaired, suit. Under theory, individual reason defendant impair third party. formulation simply ignores explicit statutory "perso[n]" whose "right ... contracts," 1981(a), "impair[ed]," 1981(c), account just construction always rejected. points our cases involving plaintiffs status unclear. Because prevailed, privity sine qua non cases, however, discuss, much less decide, question. Shaare Tefila Congregation Cobb, 481 615 (1987), decided narrow question Jews race 1982. 618. Similarly, Runyon, supra, arguments addressed "only two questions: prohibits private, commercially operated, nonsectarian schools denying admission prospective students Negroes, and, federal constitutional applied." 168 (footnote omitted). And Goodman Lukens Steel 482 656 contested issues: subject injury limitations period, 660-664, violates Title VII 1964 union decline press employees' grievances governing collective-bargaining 669. "The often grants certiorari particular issues assuming deciding validity antecedent propositions, assumptionseven jurisdictional issuesare *479 binding future directly raise questions." Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 259, 272 (1990) (citations resorts finally policy arguments. Unless prevails, warns, acts will unpunished. Corporations, choose breach. likely occurrence victim forgo potent available remedy. Injured "usually best proponents their rights," Singleton Wulff, 428 106, 114 (1976) (plurality opinion). "the holders . do wish them," 113-114, normally entitled shoes. Moreover, multitude civil statutes. Many hypothetical examples unpunished fact reachable VIIor criminal 27 (concerning scenario "Domino's officials beaten up attempt intimidate him"). most important response, nothing suggests provide omnibus remedy injustice. If situations Trying cure-all goes beyond expression congressional intent produce satellite litigation immense scope. theory class actions minority employees nonbreaching (or, matter, company failing award), (or refusal contract) them. Consistent case plain hold have) proposed) wishes *480 enforce." injuries flowing else's. correctly recognized applied these principles, erred reversing judgment.[4] * judgment accordingly Reversed. ALITO took consideration case. NOTES [*] Briefs amici curiae urging reversal State Alabama et Troy King, Attorney Alabama, Kevin C. Newsom, Solicitor General, Roberto Sánchez Ramos, Secretary Justice Puerto Rico, Attorneys respective follows: W. Suthers Colorado, Phill Kline Kansas, Michael A. Cox Michigan, Brian Sandoval Jim Petro Ohio, Hardy Myers Oregon, Paul G. Summers Tennessee, Mark L. Shurtleff Utah, Rob McKenna Washington; Equal Employment Advisory Council Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Stephen Bokat, Robin Conrad, Robert Costagliola; Pacific Legal Foundation H. Findley Beard II. affirmance New York Eliot Spitzer, York, Caitlin Halligan, Michelle Aronowitz, Deputy Shaifali Puri Benjamin N. Gutman, Assistant Solicitors Kerry Drue, Acting Virgin Islands, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Thomas Miller Iowa, F. Reilly Massachusetts, Mike McGrath Montana, William Sorrell Vermont, Peggy Lautenschlager Wisconsin; Lawyers' Committee Martin, Barbara Arnwine, Sarah Crawford, Tricia Jefferson, Jennifer K. Brown, Theodore M. Shaw, Jacqueline Berrien, Norman Chachkin, Stroup. [1] Since involved case, occasion determine whether, corporation, note, Courts considered issue claims. Hudson Freedom Theater, Heimbach, 671 702, 706 (CA2 1982). [2] "pepperoni salesman" analogy imprecise. better parallel facts here unable collect accounts receivable place. point, same: An seeking else [3] say "under rights" party" mean exclude possibility third-party beneficiary Restatement (Second) Contracts 304, p. 448 (1979) ("A promise creates duty promisor perform promise, duty"). Neither affirm possibility. Blessing Freestone, 520 329, 349 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring) ("Until relatively recent times, generally regarded stranger contract, sue it"). before us here, having [4] also merits (for time) Circuit's interfered Counsel oral argument contention (see Court's Rule 15.2), "sort formulatio[n] argument" properly raised. Tr. Oral Arg. 28. such, fails reasons original incarnation. acknowledges obligation him, received derived impairment rights.

Category: 1