Court Opinion

ID: 9475445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:27:44.454788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:43.406027
License: Public Domain

BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result:
For the reasons stated in Section III of the majority opinion, I agree that summary judgment was properly entered against appellant Gladys Banks because she failed to support her opposition to appellee’s motion for summary judgment with evidence sufficient to create a contested issue of fact. I cannot agree, however, with the reasoning in Section II of the majority opinion.
As an initial matter, I believe that the majority’s conclusion that Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1985), requires us to borrow the District of Columbia’s three-year catchall statute of limitations, D.C. Code § 12-301(8) (1981), for section 1981 actions brought in the District disregards the rationale of Garcia. If I agreed that Garcia applies in this case, I would join our three sister circuits that have decided the issue in the section 1983 context by ruling that Garcia requires us to borrow the local limitations period governing tort claims for intentional rather than negligent personal injury. Thus, in this case I would borrow the one-year limitations period for intentional personal injuries provided by D.C. Code § 12-301(4), rather than the three-year catch-all period of D.C. Code § 12-301(8).
*1432More fundamentally, however, I do not believe that Garcia’s directive that courts adopt personal injury statutes in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) applies at all in this case. Unlike the claim in Garcia, which was asserted under section 1983, appellant’s claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The historical background and objectives of section 1981 are entirely different from those of section 1983, and therefore the reasons articulated in Garcia for borrowing personal injury limitations periods are not applicable in the section 1981 context. Accordingly, I conclude that Garcia does not prevent us from adopting the most analogous local statute of limitations, which in the District of Columbia is the one-year limitations period provided by the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 1-2544.
This conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court’s pre-Garcia suggestion that section 1981 claims ordinarily should be governed by limitations periods applicable to causes of action arising under state civil rights laws. Because neither the rationale nor the holding of Garcia evince an intent to override this approach, I would hold that the Human Rights Act provides the applicable statute of limitations in this case even if I agreed that Garcia otherwise applies in the section 1981 context.
Because I conclude that appellant’s section 1981 claim is subject to the one-year statute contained in the D.C. Human Rights Act, I believe that dismissal of appellant’s claim was required for the additional reason that appellant’s claim was time barred.
I. Garcia and Its Antecedents
Prior to Garcia, there would have been no doubt as to the application of the D.C. Human Rights Act limitations period to appellant’s section 1981 claim. Because federal law provides no period of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, we are directed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to apply a state statute of limitations to section 1981 claims. The Supreme Court has instructed that in determining which state statute to apply, we must select the “most appropriate” limitations period provided by state law. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 462, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 1721, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975). This means we must borrow “the most analogous state statute of limitations,” Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 488,100 S.Ct. 1790, 1797, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980), which is to say “the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action.” Id. at 483-84, 100 S.Ct. at 1795.
In Runyon v. McGrary, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976), the Supreme Court strongly suggested that, for purposes of section 1981, the “most analogous” state limitations period ordinarily is the statute of limitations applicable to actions brought under state civil rights laws. In Runyon, the Court confronted the question of which Virginia statute of limitations should govern section 1981 actions brought in that state. The Court approved of the trial court’s selection of the Virginia personal injury statute, observing that:
At the time of this litigation Virginia had not enacted a statute that specifically governed civil rights suits. In the absence of such a specific statute, the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that the [Virginia personal injury statute] provides the relevant limitations period____
Id. at 180, 96 S.Ct. at 2599.
Before Garcia, it is clear that Johnson, Tomanio, and Runyon required application of the one-year limitations period of the D.C. Human Rights Act to section 1981 actions brought in the District of Columbia. The protections of the Act are in most respects broader than those afforded by section 1981. Compare D.C. Code §§ 1-2511 to 2532 with 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Thus, the Act provides the local cause of action “most analogous” to section 1981, Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. at 488, 100 S.Ct. at 1797, and contains a local statute of limitations “that specifically governs] civil rights suits.” Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. at 180, 96 S.Ct. at 2599.
To be sure, this court ruled in Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 478 F.2d *1433979, 994 (D.C. Cir.1973), that section 1981 actions in the District of Columbia are governed by the District’s three-year catch-all statute of limitations, D.C.Code § 12-301(8). As the majority notes, however, maj. op. at 1419-20 and n. 9, Macklin was decided before the D.C. Human Rights Act was enacted, and this court has not had occasion to reconsider the Macklin holding in light of the Act. Indeed, it was not until the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Davis v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 449 A.2d 278, 280-81 (D.C. App.1982), that it was clear that the Act’s one-year limitation on the filing of administrative complaints also applies to civil actions brought under the Act. Thus, it was only after Davis that section 1981 actions could be subjected to the Act’s limitations period free of the concerns identified in Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 104 S.Ct. 2924, 82 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984), relating to application of administrative statutes of limitations to federal civil rights actions.
In Wilson v. Garcia, 105 S.Ct. 1983, the Supreme Court substantially modified the analysis for determining which state limitations period to apply to section 1983 actions. Foremost among the matters to be decided in the instant case is the degree to which the rules enunciated in Garcia for section 1983 actions apply to actions arising under section 1981.
The plaintiff in Garcia alleged that he had been unlawfully arrested and beaten by a New Mexico state police officer. The district court ruled that section 1983 actions are most appropriately governed by limitations periods for liabilities created by statute. Because New Mexico law does not provide a separate limitations period for claims arising under statute, the district court applied instead New Mexico’s catch-all statute of limitations. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the action was governed by New Mexico’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether one of these statutes or the New Mexico statute governing tort claims against state officials should be applied.
As an initial matter, the Garcia Court held that “the borrowing principle contained in § 1988 ... is fairly construed as a directive to select, in each State, the one most appropriate statute of limitations for all § 1983 claims.” Id. at 1947. The Court thus rejected the practice that had arisen in many circuits of selecting the statute of limitations applicable to individual federal civil rights claims by comparing the federal claim to various state causes of action and choosing the limitations period governing the state cause of action most closely analogous to the federal claim. The Court observed that there are several undesirable consequences of applying different limitations periods to section 1983 actions brought in the same state. First, “there is ‘uncertainty, confusion, and lack of uniformity in selecting the applicable statute of limitations in § 1983 suits.’ ” Id. at 1945 n. 25 (quoting Annot. 45 A.L.R.Fed. 548, 554 (1979)). Second, “scarce resources must be dissipated by useless litigation on collateral matters.” Id. at 1947. Third, “the adoption of one analogy rather than another will often be somewhat arbitrary; in such a case, the losing party may ‘infer that the choice of a limitations period in his case was result oriented, thereby undermining his belief that he has been dealt with fairly.’ ” Id. at 1945 n. 24 (quoting Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640, 650 (10th Cir.1984)).
Having decided that only one state limitations period should govern section 1983 actions in each state, the Court turned to the question of which state statute should be applied. The Court agreed with the Tenth Circuit that “the tort action for recovery of damages for personal injuries is the best alternative available.” Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1947. Two considerations led the Court to this conclusion. First, the nature of the section 1983 remedy suggested this result. The Court observed that “[t]he atrocities that concerned Congress in 1871 plainly sounded in tort____ Among the potential analogies, Congress unquestionably would have considered the remedies established in the Civil Rights Act to *1434be more analogous to tort claims for personal injury than, for example, to claims for damages to property or breach of contract.” Id. at 1948. Second, “[i]t is most unlikely that the period of limitations applicable to [personal injury] claims ever was, or ever would be, fixed in a way that would discriminate against federal claims, or be inconsistent with federal law in any respect.” Id. at 1949.
II. Limitations Period Selection Under Garcia
As explained in Section III, infra, I do not agree with the majority that Garcia requires us to adopt a personal injury statute of limitations in this section 1981 case. Even if I agreed with the majority that Garcia applies, however, I would nevertheless adopt a different personal injury statute than that selected by the majority. The District of Columbia Code contains two statutes applicable to personal injury claims: D.C.Code § 12-301(4), which governs actions for “libel, slander, assault, battery, mayhem, wounding, malicious prosecution, false arrest or false imprisonment,” and D.C.Code § 12-301(8), the District’s catch-all statute of limitations, which governs all other personal injury actions.1 Though there are a few intentional torts such as trespass, invasion of privacy, and interference with contract that are not covered by section 12-301(4), Lawrence v. Acree, 665 F.2d 1319, 1323 n. 5 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the basic distinction between the two provisions is that section 12-301(4) governs actions for intentional personal injury, while section 12-301(8) governs actions for negligent personal injury. See Marusa v. District of Columbia, 484 F.2d 828, 833 (D.C. Cir.1973).
This distinction is one that is observed in many states, and it has presented a limitations period selection problem apparently not anticipated by the Supreme Court in Garcia. Since Garcia was decided, three of our sister circuits have squarely confronted this problem in the section 1983 context, and all three circuits have held that the rationale of Garcia dictates selection of the local limitations period governing tort claims for intentional rather than negligent personal injury.
In Gates v. Spinks, 771 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1378, 89 L.Ed.2d 603 (1986), the court was confronted with a choice between Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-35 (1972), which governs actions for “assault, assault and battery, maiming, false imprisonment, malicious arrest, or menace, and all actions for slanderous words concerning the person or title, and for libels,” and Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-49, Mississippi’s catch-all statute, which governs “[a]ll actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed.” The court ruled that Garcia compels adoption of the statute governing intentional tort claims, observing that “[m]ost 1983 actions are predicated on intentional rather than negligent acts. Also ... 1983 was enacted for the purpose of redressing injuries from intentional misconduct. It follows that the 1983 action is more analogous to intentional torts governed by ... Miss. Code Ann. 15-1-35.” Gates v. Spinks, 771 F.2d at 920.
Similarly, in Mulligan v. Hazard, 777 F.2d 340 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 2902, 90 L.Ed.2d 988 (1986), the choice was between Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11 (1981), which governs actions for “libel, slander, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, or malpractice,” and Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10, which governs all other actions for “bodily injury or injuring personal property.” Once again, the court chose to ap*1435ply the statute governing the enumerated intentional torts because of Garcia’s teaching that “[t]he concern of Congress ... was with perpetuators of intentional tortious conduct. While both §§ 2305.10 and 2305.11 theoretically encompass intentional tort actions, § 2305.11, which applies to actions involving assaults, batteries and the like, more specifically encompasses the sorts of actions which concerned Congress as it enacted the civil rights statutes.” Mulligan v. Hazard, 111 F.2d at 344.
Finally, in Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 763 F.2d 1250 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 893, 88 L.Ed.2d 926 (1986), the choice was between Ala.Code § 6-2-34 (1977), which governs actions “for any trespass to person or liberty, such as false imprisonment or assault and battery,” and Ala.Code § 6-2-39(a)(5), which governs actions “for any injury to the person or rights of another not arising from contract and not specifically enumerated____” In this case as well, the court found that Garcia compels adoption of the intentional personal injury statute. See also Cook v. City of Minneapolis, 617 F.Supp. 461, 464-65 (D.Minn.1985) (“a § 1983 claim should be characterized as a personal injury action along the lines of an intentional tort for statute of limitations purposes”); Small v. City of Belfast, 617 F.Supp. 1567, 1571-74 (D. Me.1985).
These decisions of the Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits are clearly relevant to the instant case. The choice we face, and even the wording of the D.C. statutes, bears a striking resemblance to the choices faced in these cases. As our sister circuits have emphasized, it was the analogy between intentional personal injury claims and civil rights actions that the Supreme Court found persuasive in Garcia. Particularly in view of the Supreme Court’s decision last term that plaintiffs ordinarily must plead a state of mind more culpable than “mere negligence” in order to state a claim under section 1983, Daniels v. Williams, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986), it is apparent that negligent personal injury statutes are less analogous to federal civil rights claims than intentional personal injury statutes. Accordingly, if Garcia governs this case, it requires us to borrow the local statute governing most intentional personal injury claims, D.C. Code § 12-301(4), rather than the catch-all statute of D.C.Code § 12-301(8). Claims governed by § 12-301(4) are extinguished if not brought within one year of the date that they accrue. Because appellant’s claim was not brought within the prescribed period, application of Garcia to this case would require us to hold that the claim was properly dismissed as time barred (assuming that appellee’s failure to specifically cite D.C. Code § 12-301(4) does not deprive it of that statute’s protection).
The arguments advanced by the majority to avoid this conclusion are all unpersuasive. First, the majority asserts that the circuits are divided on the question of whether Garcia requires adoption of negligent or intentional personal injury statutes, citing the Tenth Circuit’s decisions in Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052, 105 S.Ct. 2111, 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985), and Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052, 105 S.Ct. 2111, 85 L.Ed.2d 476 (1985). The majority fails to note, however, that both of these cases were decided before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Garcia. Thus, these cases were decided without benefit of Garcia’s, emphasis on the intentional nature of the civil rights violations that prompted Congress to enact section 1983. Every circuit that has considered the issue since Garcia has concluded that the rationale of Garcia requires adoption of statutes governing intentional personal injury claims.
The majority next suggests that it might be appropriate to borrow negligent personal injury statutes for section 1983 actions because civil rights violations “are injuries ‘to the individual rights of the person,’ ” maj. op. at 1427, quoting Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1948 (emphasis in majority opinion), and because such violations arguably should be treated as “dignitary torts.” Id. The logic of this argument eludes me. Whether *1436characterized as “injuries to the individual rights of the person,” “dignitary torts,” or something else, the fact remains that violations of the civil rights laws generally are a form of intentional rather than negligent misconduct. See Daniels v. Williams, 106 S.Ct. at 664. Garcia accordingly teaches that civil rights actions are to be governed by statutes of limitations for intentional rather than negligent personal injury claims.
The majority argues that we should be guided by the Second Circuit’s treatment of two New York statutes that are analogous to the District of Columbia’s personal injury statutes: N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law § 215(3) (McKinney Supp.1986), which governs intentional personal injury claims, and N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 214(5), which governs other personal injury claims. Of the cases cited by the majority, however, only two even advert to the possible applicability of New York’s intentional personal injury statute to section 1983 claims, see Villante v. Department of Corrections of the City of New York, 786 F.2d 516, 520 n. 2 (2d Cir.1986); Okure v. Owens, 625 F.Supp. 1568, 1570 (N.D.N.Y.1986), and in Villante the Second Circuit specifically declined to decide which statute applied because the claim in that case was timely under either of the statutes. It is not apparent to me why we should accord greater weight to cases from the Second Circuit, where the issue we confront has not been decided by the Court of Appeals, than to decisions from the Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, where the issue we confront has been decided by the Courts of Appeals.
The majority further argues that we should be guided by this circuit’s treatment of the two D.C. personal injury statutes in the context of actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The cases cited by the majority are inapposite, however, for two reasons. First, these cases did not arise under section 1981 or 1983, and therefore do not speak to the question of which D.C. statute is most analogous to claims arising under these sections. Second, all of the Court of Appeals decisions cited by the majority were decided before Garcia, and consequently were not informed by the Supreme Court’s rationale in that case. Significantly, two of the Court of Appeals decisions applied the D.C. statute governing intentional personal injury claims even without benefit of the Garcia rationale. McClam v. Barry, 697 F.2d 366 (D.C. Cir.1983); Doe v. United States Department of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir.1985). The majority’s apparent conclusion that Garcia would prompt this court to overrule the holding of these two cases in favor of the holding of Hob-son v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1843, 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985) (applying the D.C. catch-all statute), is highly speculative and disregards the rationale of Garcia as interpreted by the Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits.
Finally, the majority asserts that even if the Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits are right that section 1983 claims should be governed by intentional personal injury statutes — an issue that we cannot decide because it is not before us — the instant case is properly subject to D.C. Code § 12-301(8) because it involves a claim under section 1981. This argument is in noticeable tension with the balance of the majority opinion, which stresses the similarities between sections 1981 and 1983 in order to explain why Garcia applies at all to section 1981 claims. As explained in the next section, I agree that sections 1981 and 1983 are very different, but conclude from this that we should not adopt a personal injury statute at all in this case. I would adopt instead the limitations period provided by the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 1-2544.
III. Limited Applicability op Garcia to the Instant Case
I agree with the majority that Garcia requires us to select in the case at bar “the one most appropriate” local statute of limitations to govern all section 1981 claims brought in the District of Columbia. I *1437disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Garcia compels us to adopt in this case as “the one most appropriate” limitations period D.C. Code § 12-301(8), the local statute governing most non-intentional personal injury claims.
I believe that Garcia must be interpreted in light of its facts, the legal issues presented, and the rationale articulated by the Court in deciding the case. The critical distinction between Garcia and this case is that Garcia involved an action under section 1983 raiher than section 1981. The personal injury analogy relied on in Garcia is not persuasive in the section 1981 context, and I therefore conclude that Garcia does not require us to borrow a personal injury statute in section 1981 cases. This leaves us free to adopt the most analogous local statute of limitations, which in the District of Columbia is provided by the D.C. Human Rights Act.
This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that, prior to Garcia, the Supreme Court indicated that section 1981 cases ordinarily should be governed by statutes of limitations applicable to state civil rights actions. Because the rationale and holding of Garcia do not reveal an intent to discard this approach in section 1981 cases, I would hold that the Human Rights Act provides the applicable limitations period even if I agreed that Garcia otherwise governs this case. These two arguments are developed in greater detail in the sections that follow.
A. Differences Between Section 1981 and Section 1983
The majority dismisses the differences between section 1981 and section 1983 as irrelevant because they were “each a product of the Reconstruction Era,” and each was focused on the need to provide blacks with protection against the abridgement of fundamental rights. Maj. op. at 1421-22. The attempt to minimize the differences between the two provisions will not withstand rigorous analysis. As explained in Pender v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 625 F.Supp. 252, 255 (D.D.C.1985), sections 1981 and 1983 “were passed at different times and seek to remedy different types of civil rights violations.”
Section 1983 was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act.2 As the Supreme Court observed in Garcia, “[t]he specific historical catalyst for the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was the campaign of violence and deception in the South, fomented by the Ku Klux Klan, which was denying decent citizens their civil and political rights.” Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1947. See also E. Gressman, The Unhappy History of Civil Rights Legislation, 50 Mich.L.Rev. 1323, 1334 (1952). The legislative history of this statute establishes that Congress wanted to stop the murders, lynchings, and whippings perpetrated by lawless elements in the South, as well as eliminate “the refuge that local authorities extended to the authors of these outrageous incidents.” Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1947.
This violent background to section 1983 is critical to the Court’s decision in Garcia to apply personal injury limitations periods to section 1983 claims. The Court observed that “[t]he atrocities that concerned Congress in 1871 plainly sounded in tort.” Id. at 1948. Reasoning from this premise, the Court concluded that “[ajmong the potential analogies, Congress unquestionably would have considered the remedies established in the Civil Rights Act to be more analogous to tort claims for personal injury than, for example, to claims for damages to property or breach of contract.” Id.
*1438The majority in the instant case fails to acknowledge that Garcia’s selection of personal injury limitations periods as the “best alternative available” for section 1983 actions is bottomed on the turmoil that section 1983 was intended to arrest. Rather, the majority admits to “no difference between the central objectives of § 1981 and § 1983” because one provision of section 1981 “broadly protects the right of all persons ‘to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.’ ” Maj. op. at 1422 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1981). The majority thus relies on the superficial analogy between sections 1981 and 1983, failing to recognize the significant differences in the nature of the rights protected and the ills sought to be remedied by the two provisions.
In contrast to section 1983, section 1981 was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.3 It was intended to implement the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery. As the text of section 1981 and early cases suggest, the 1866 Civil Rights Act was designed to ensure equal rights before the law for all citizens. In particular, the law guaranteed the right of recently emancipated citizens to enter into contracts, hold property, invoke the protections of the courts, and enjoy the full and equal benefit of the laws. See E. Gressman, supra, 50 Mich.L.Rev. at 1326.
The language and legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 demonstrate that while the Act was designed to eliminate the racial injustices of the early postwar era, it was in no significant respect a response to violence directed against blacks. The principal problem addressed by section 1981 was the refusal of the recently defeated southern states to accord equal legal protection to blacks. A related problem was that of private discrimination against blacks. Though there was some evidence before Congress that this private discrimination in the early post-war era included occasional violence directed against blacks, see Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 427-28, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 2197, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968), a fair reading of the legislative history indicates that Congress’ deliberations were not significantly affected by this evidence. See, e.g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 474-75 (remarks of Sen. Trumbull); 477-81 (Sen. Saulsbury); 503-4 (Sen. Howard); 530 (Sen. Johnson); 1151-52 (Rep. Thayer); 1156-57 (Rep. Thornton); 1117-18 (Rep. Wilson); 1265 (Rep. Broomall); 1290-93 (Rep. Bingham); 1832-37 (Rep. Lawrence). It is therefore impossible to conclude that Congress’ decision to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act was in any substantial way motivated by evidence of racial violence. The legislative history of the 1866 Act stands in marked contrast to that of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which clearly demonstrates that the 1871 Congress was animated by its outrage over the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan and other lawless elements in the South. See, e.g., Cong. Globe 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 374 (remarks of Rep. Lowe); 321 (Rep. Stoughton); 332 (Rep. Hoar); 369-70 (Rep. Monroe); 389 (Rep. Elliott); 412-13 (Rep. E. Roberts); 428 (Rep. Beatty); 436-40 (Rep. Cobb); 516-17 (Rep. Shellabarger); 606 (Sen. Pool); 654 (Sen. Osborne); 691 (Sen. Edmunds).4
*1439Because section 1981 was not enacted against the violent background that was “[t]he specific historical catalyst for the Civil Rights Act of 1871,” Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1947, it was held in Pender v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 625 F.Supp. at 254-55, that Garcia does not compel application of one of the District of Columbia’s personal injury limitations periods to section 1981 claims. The court reasoned in Pender that “[ujnlike § 1983, the remedies established by § 1981 are not ‘more analogous to tort claims for personal injury than, for example, to claims for damages to property or breach of contract.’ ” Id. at 255 (quoting Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1948). Rather, the court determined that:
The causes of action that may be brought under § 1981 are most analogous to breach of contract actions, employment grievances, and complaints for denial of the right to use public accommodations. The most appropriate local cause of action from which to adopt a single limitations period for these actions is the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.
Id. Views consistent with Pender are expressed in Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 777 F.2d 113, 130-38 (3d Cir.1985) (Garth, J., dissenting). I believe that Pender and Judge Garth’s dissent in Goodman represent a sound application of the Garcia rationale to the entirely different circumstances presented by section 1981. Accordingly, I would hold that the instant case is governed by the Human Rights Act statute of limitations rather than a personal injury limitations period.
B. Availability of a Local Limitations Period for Civil Rights Actions
Even if I were to conclude that, as a general matter, Garcia applies equally to claims brought under sections 1981 and 1983,1 would nevertheless decline to adopt a personal injury statute in this case because the District of Columbia Human Rights Act provides a local cause of action, governed by a local statute of limitations, for civil rights violations closely analogous to those prohibited by section 1981. It is important to recall in this connection the Supreme Court’s suggestion in Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. at 180, 96 S.Ct. at 2599, that, for claims arising under section 1981, if a state has “not enacted a statute that specifically govem[s] civil rights suits,” other state limitations periods will be considered. Thus, we confront the question of whether Garcia — a section 1983 case— overrides the approach suggested by Runyon for section 1981 cases, or is to be interpreted consistently with that approach. In other words, the question is whether the analogy between section 1981 and state civil rights statutes like the D.C. Human Rights Act is so strong that limitations periods governing state civil rights claims should be viewed as presenting an exception to the broad rule of Garcia. 5 *1440As explained below, my analysis of the rationale of Garcia leads me to conclude that Garcia does not override Runyon, and that it therefore does not require adoption of personal injury statutes of limitations in section 1981 cases when limitations periods applicable to closely analogous state civil rights actions are also available.
The Supreme Court in Garcia identified three principal reasons for holding that section 1983 claims should be subject to the local limitations period governing personal injury actions. First, the Court explained that the process of analogizing individual federal claims to local causes of action had led to unfairness, uncertainty, and litigation over collateral matters. Second, the Court reasoned that it is appropriate to borrow personal injury limitations periods because of the strong similarities between claims brought under section 1983 and personal injury claims. . Third, the Court stated that adoption of personal injury limitations periods eliminates the risk of state discrimination against federal claims. When carefully scrutinized, it is apparent that none of these justifications for the broad rule of Garcia compels rejection of the Runyon approach in section 1981 cases when there is a state cause of action closely analogous to that provided by section 1981.
In order to remedy the first problem identified by the Supreme Court, that of unfairness and uncertainty, Garcia instructs the courts “to select, in each State, the one most appropriate statute of limitations for all § 1983 claims.” Garcia, 105 5. Ct. at 1947. This directive would not be violated by applying Garcia consistently with Runyon. If Garcia is interpreted as requiring application of personal injury limitations statutes to section 1981 claims in all states except those having limitations periods for closely analogous state civil rights actions, there would nevertheless be only one statute applicable to all federal civil rights actions in each state. There would be no problem of unfairness, uncertainty, or litigation over collateral matters. The first rationale articulated by the Court in Garcia therefore does not require us to prefer personal injury limitations periods to periods governing state civil rights claims.
The Court’s second rationale provides no better support for the conclusion that a D.C. personal injury statute of limitations should be applied in this case. It is indeed true that, in view of the historical background to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the remedy provided by section 1983 is similar to the remedy provided by state causes of action for personal injury. It does not follow from this, however, that the remedy provided by section 1981 is more analogous to personal injury claims than to state civil rights claims. As explained in Section 111(A), supra, the protections afforded by section 1981 are very different from those afforded by section 1983, and therefore the personal injury analogy relied upon in Garcia is not persuasive in the section 1981 context. In addition, it is significant that the only limitations periods considered by the Supreme Court in Garcia were the New Mexico periods for personal injuries, torts committed by state officials, and causes of action not otherwise provided for. Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1940-41. Presented with these choices, the Court ruled that “[ajmong the potential analogies” Congress would have considered the remedies established in the Civil Rights Act to be most analogous to tort claims for personal injury.6 Id. at 1948. As a state civil rights statute was not “[ajmong the potential analogies” available in Garcia, that case does not preclude consideration of state civil rights limitations periods in cases aris*1441ing under section 1981.7 It follows that the similarities identified in Garcia between section 1983 and personal injury claims do not require that section 1981 actions be governed by personal injury limitations periods rather than limitations periods applicable to state civil rights claims.
The third consideration cited by the Supreme Court in favor of borrowing personal injury limitations statutes likewise fails to provide a basis for not applying appropriate state civil rights limitations periods. The Court suggests that states are unlikely to fix personal injury limitations periods in such a way as to discriminate against federal civil rights claims. Id. at 1949. This is no doubt true, but it does not follow from this that there is reason to believe that states are likely to fix limitations periods applicable to state civil rights actions in such a way as to discriminate against federal claims. I am not prepared to assume that a state that creates a private right of action for civil rights violations acts in bad faith and with the intention of circumscribing the remedies available to victims of discrimination. To the contrary, it is apparent that those states that have created such a right of action have acted out of solicitude for the victims of discrimination.8
It must be emphasized that the D.C. Human Rights Act is a legitimate piece of local antidiscrimination legislation. It is not a statute like those enacted by some states that purports to create a limitations period for federal claims only. There is clearly a greater risk that such statutes will discriminate against federal claims than will limitations periods that apply to state causes of action. See, e.g., Johnson v. Davis, 582 F.2d 1316 (4th Cir.1978). Moreover, the Supreme Court has emphasized with respect to state limitations periods that “courts are to apply state law only if it is not 'inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.' ” Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. at 2929 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1988). Thus, if any limitations period applicable to state civil rights actions could be shown to discriminate against federal claims, it could simply be disregarded in favor of a statute of limitations more consistent with federal interests. See id. at 53, 104 S.Ct. at 2931.
It is important to observe in this connection that the one-year limitations period provided by the D.C. Human Rights Act is in no way inconsistent with the federal interests embodied in section 1981. The majority relies on one sentence from Davis v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 449 A.2d 278 (D.C.App.1982), in order to conclude that there is such an inconsistency. Maj. op. at 1423. In reality, the two assertedly inconsistent local objectives identified in Davis — “the desire to promote rapid compliance with the Act,” and avoiding problems associated with “the impermanent na*1442ture of the evidence upon which discrimination claims are based,” Davis, 449 A.2d at 281 — are the types of objectives that all statutes of limitations, federal and state, seek to promote.
To the extent that the majority argues that repose is inconsistent with the policy of the federal civil rights laws, maj. op. at 1423, it ignores recent Supreme Court decisions establishing that repose is an important objective of these laws. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. at 488,100 S.Ct. at 1797; Garcia, 105 S.Ct. at 1944-45. As stated in Garcia, “[a] federal cause of action ‘brought at any distance of time’ would be ‘utterly repugnant to the genius of our laws.’ ” Id. at 1944 (quoting Adams v. Woods, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 336, 341, 2 L.Ed. 297 (1805)). Garcia further explained that “[b]y adopting the statute governing an analogous cause of action under state law, federal law incorporates the State’s judgment on the proper balance between the policies of repose and the substantive policies of enforcement embodied in the state cause of action.” Id. at 1945. That the balance struck in the D.C. Human Rights Act is in no way inconsistent with federal interests is demonstrated by the fact that a number of courts applying Garcia in other jurisdictions have borrowed one-year state limitations periods for federal civil rights actions. See Mulligan v. Hazard, 777 F.2d 340, 344 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied,U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2902, 90 L.Ed.2d 988 (1986); Gates v. Spinks, 771 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1378, 89 L.Ed.2d 603 (1986); Altair Corp. v. Pesquera De Busquets, 769 F.2d 30 (1st Cir.1985); Burkhart v. Randles, 764 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir.1985). Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (actions against persons who neglect to prevent certain civil rights violations are subject to a one-year limitations period).
The D.C. Human Rights Act closely tracks the objectives of section 1981 in its assault on discriminatory practices based not only on race and sex, but on education, age, and a host of other conditions.9 It is precisely such legislation that Runyon v. McCrary instructs us to look to in borrowing local limitations periods under section 1981, and, as explained above, I am satisfied that Garcia does not override Runyon in this respect. Moreover, because the D.C. statute is so closely analogous to section 1981, applying a limitations period other than that governing claims under the Human Rights Act will lead to the unseemly problem of forum shopping as litigants shift their discrimination claims to federal court in order to take advantage of the more generous limitations period adopted by the majority. It has long been recognized that such a result is contrary to the genius of federal law in the diversity context, see, e.g., Guaranty Trust v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 107-12, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 1469-71, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945), and the borrowing provision of section 1988 clearly rests on similar principles. The policies of section 1988 can best be effectuated by applying the Human Rights Act’s one-year statute to all section 1981 claims brought in the District of Columbia, and I would so hold in this case.
IV. Conclusion
In view of the foregoing analysis, I conclude that, properly construed, Garcia does not require this court to ignore the local statute of limitations applicable to civil rights actions in favor of one of the District of Columbia’s personal injury statutes. *1443Because Garcia’s selection of personal injury limitations periods is inapposite in the section 1981 context, and because of the strong analogy between causes of action under the D.C. Human Rights Act and section 1981 claims, I would adopt the Human Rights Act’s one-year limitations period in this case. Moreover, even if I believed that Garcia requires us to borrow a personal injury statute, I would adhere to the decisions of our sister circuits and borrow the one-year statute governing most intentional personal injury claims rather than the three-year statute governing negligent personal injury claims. For all of these reasons, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that appellant’s section 1981 claim was not time barred.

. As the majority notes, maj. op. at 1427, neither party suggested that D.C.Code § 12-301(4) might govern this case. The question of which local statute governs section 1981 actions is nevertheless before us, and we therefore must consider all possibilities in deciding whether the statute relied upon by appellee, D.C.Code § 1-2544, or some other statute governs appellant’s claim. If we were to conclude that D.C.Code § 12-301(4) governs section 1981 claims, we would then have to decide whether appellee’s failure to rely on this statute prevents it from gaining the statute's protection. Because I conclude that appellee properly relied on D.C.Code § 1-2544,1 need not reach this second question.

. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1982) provides:
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.

. The majority does not dispute that the origin and purposes of sections 1981 and 1983 are quite different. The majority observes:
Like § 1983, § 1981 is best characterized as a remedy for personal injury torts, ... but unlike § 1983, it was not designed to provide a remedy for intentional torts such as assaults or batteries. Rather, § 1981 primarily ensures equal rights to make and enforce contracts, equal access to judicial process, and equal rights under law.
Maj. op. at 1427. (emphasis in the original). The majority relies on these differences in order *1439to avoid three post-Garcia Court of Appeals decisions indicating that section 1983 claims are governed by the local limitations period for intentional rather than negligent personal injury claims. See Section II, supra.
This analysis is at odds with the remainder of the majority opinion, which stresses the similarities between sections 1981 and 1983 in order to explain why Garcia applies at all in the section 1981 context. Essentially, the majority contends that sections 1981 and 1983 are sufficiently similar to require us to apply a personal injury statute of limitations to section 1981 claims, but sufficiently dissimilar to permit us to ignore the rationale of Garcia insofar as it compels adoption of limitations periods for intentional rather than negligent personal injury claims. I believe that a more consistent approach would be to disregard in the section 1981 context Garcia’s preference for personal injury statutes and apply instead the "one most appropriate” local law of limitations — in this case, the D.C. Human Rights Act.

. The majority states that under my reasoning "courts may remain free to consider any potentially analogous state causes of action for which New Mexico ... had no special limitations period.” Maj. op. at 1425 (emphasis in the original). This argument mischaracterizes my analysis and completely ignores my reliance on Runyon. I would hold only that the approach suggested by Runyon survives Garcia. The exception to Garcia that I advocate is a narrow one, extending only to state limitations periods for civil rights actions. I do not mean to suggest that other state limitations periods can or must be considered if there was no analogue under New Mexico law.

. The majority argues that the Supreme Court’s discussion and rejection of limitations periods for statutory claims — a type of limitations period not provided by New Mexico law — indicates that the Court "was considering all of the potential characterizations for § 1983 claims in any state.” Maj. op. at 1426. It is clear to me that this discussion was a response to the district court’s ruling that section 1983 claims ordinarily should be characterized as claims arising under statute. Unlike the majority, I am unable to discern from this discussion or any other portion of the Garcia decision an intent to preclude adoption of statutes of limitations governing state civil rights actions closely analogous to section 1981.

. It is arguable that were the Supreme Court to revisit Garcia in a state with a statute similar to the D.C. Human Rights Act, it might conclude that the analogy between section 1983 and the local civil rights law is sufficiently strong to permit adoption of the state civil rights statute of limitations in the section 1983 context. Because this issue is not presented by the instant case, I need not speculate on how the Supreme Court would decide the issue.

. The majority’s refusal to apply the D.C. Human Rights Act’s statute of limitations in this case derives no support from the failure of courts in New York to apply the statute governing that state’s Human Rights Law to section 1983 claims. It should be observed at the outset that the New York Human Rights Law sets no limitation on actions brought under the Law, and such actions consequently have been held subject to New York’s three-year statute for liabilities arising under statute. Murphy v. American Home Products Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 307, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 239, 448 N.E.2d 86, 93 (Ct. App.1983). Because this three-year period is identical to the three-year statute of limitations that has been applied to section 1983 claims in New York both before and after Garcia, see Villante v. Department of Corrections of the City of New York, 786 F.2d 516, 520 n. 2 (2d Cir. 1986); Okure v. Ownes, 625 F.Supp. 1568, 1570 (N.D.N.Y.1986), the failure of litigants to rely on the Human Rights Law limitations period is hardly a mystery.
More importantly, all of the cases cited by the majority arose under section 1983 rather than section 1981. Thus, none of the cases relied upon by the majority even considered the question of whether the Human Rights Law might provide the applicable statute of limitations for section 1981 claims in New York.

. The majority argues that it would be inappropriate to borrow the D.C. Human Rights Act statute of limitations because that Act does not provide a remedy for all types of discrimination actionable under section 1981. This argument ignores the fact that we are required only to apply the "most analogous” local statute, not an identical one. The vast majority of claims that may be asserted under section 1981 are also actionable under the Human Rights Act, including claims regarding discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education. That it is possible to imagine a small number of potential section 1981 claims that could not be brought under the Human Rights Act does not establish that it would be inappropriate to apply the Act’s one-year limitations period. Indeed, there is a far larger number of potential section 1981 claims that, if asserted under D.C. law, would be subject to a statute of limitations different from the one that the majority has chosen to adopt.