Opinion ID: 3031374
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pure Motive

Text: ARCO argues that because Tim Reichert terminated Flying B for reasons that the verdict establishes were nondiscriminatory, there can be no § 1981 liability. That argument necessarily fails for the reasons explained above. Even if Reichert terminated Flying B for non-racial reasons, that does not mean that ARCO, through Davis and Lawrence, did not nonetheless cause economic harm to Flying B for racial reasons. ARCO also makes a “mixed motive” argument, that if it can be shown that ARCO would have done what it did without the racial animus, then there can be no § 1981 remedy. 16 See White, 312 F.3d at 1006. 4376 BAINS LLC v. ARCO PRODUCTS CO. We need not resolve this argument because the jury verdict establishes that ARCO did harm Flying B for racial reasons by mistreating and delaying its drivers, and that ARCO deserved to be punished for it, regardless of whether the termination of the contract was for the safety reasons urged by ARCO. The verdict does not establish that ARCO would have terminated Flying B had there been no racial animus. An award of nominal damages does not mean that there were not actual economic damages, just that the exact amount of damages attributable to the improper conduct was not proven.17 The court instructed the jury to award nominal damages if it found that ARCO had harmed Flying B in violation of § 1981, but that Flying B “failed to prove damages as defined in these instructions.” And that is exactly what the jury did.