Bankruptcy Court had statutory jurisdiction to resolve discrimination claims against debtor as a matter of law, as plaintiff consented to jurisdiction, and the statutory carve-out that would usually move personal-injury tort claims to the District Court is not a jurisdictional provision.
Implicit consent to jurisdiction suffices for a Bankruptcy Court to resolve the claim; by filing and seeking judgment from the court, Plaintiff consented to jurisdiction as to constitutional concerns. Constitutional challenges to the court's jurisdiction might have been lodged during the proceedings or in a motion challenging the denial of claim, making the present challenge untimely.
As plaintiff received notice and opportunity to be heard, there were no Due Process violations inherent in the Bankruptcy forum; consent to forum waived the jury trial right; challenge to local counsel rule waived for not being raised below.
Post-discharge, a tort liability claim that was incorporated in the bankruptcy settlement cannot be transferred or remanded.
Given absence of incidents in employee's file, employer not liable for racial animus under respondeat superior.
Employee's termination for fighting during the incident of alleged racial animus had a sufficiently non-discriminatory rationale.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172449p.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.