Opinion ID: 560522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Section 1981 Claim

Text: 29 The Magistrate granted P & G's 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Ang's section 1981 claim because section 1981 only proscribes discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. We review this dismissal de novo. Moir v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir.1990). In reviewing the dismissal, all allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858 (6th Cir.1976). A motion to dismiss may only be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Section 1981 provides: 30 All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. 31 In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), the Supreme Court held that an employee could not sue for racial harassment under section 1981 because that provision does not apply to conduct which occurs after the formation of a contract and which does not interfere with the right to enforce established contract obligations. Id., 109 S.Ct. at 2369. Although Patterson was not a discriminatory discharge case, the Sixth Circuit has held it applicable to cases of discriminatory discharge: 32 Patterson did not address the issue of discharge directly, but it did explicitly limit the application of section 1981 to discrimination in the formation or enforcement of contracts. Discharge from employment involves neither of these elements.... To limit Patterson to cases involving discrimination in ongoing employment is to ignore the language and reasoning of the Supreme Court. Patterson explicitly stated that section 1981 does not apply to conduct which occurs after the formation of a contract and which does not interfere with the right to enforce established contract obligations. Id. at 2369. In refusing to extend section 1981 to harassment cases, the Court reasoned that Title VII's procedures would be of little effect if they could be circumvented by suits under section 1981. 33 Prather v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 918 F.2d 1255, 1257 (6th Cir.1990). Ang argues that his case is distinguishable because most discriminatory discharge cases applying Patterson involve employment at will, whereas he was protected by an employment contract. Prather, however, also had an employment contract. Id. at 1258.