Sixth Circuit: Inner City Contracting LLC v. Charter Twp. of Northville

 Despite being a disappointed bidder for a government contract, the plaintiff alleged a specific injury, and therefore the claim isn't presumptively disfavored for purposes of standing. The dignitary harm in racial discrimination and the lost profits from the contract suffice for Article III standing.

A corporation's claim of racial discrimination falls within the zone of interests of the statute prohibiting racial discrimination in contract awards. Supreme Court holding saying that a corporation has no racial identity referred to constitutional standing, not statutory standing.  

Claims against state government entities must be under the general statute (S1983), as there is no cause of action against states under the particular statute.  Under the general statute, establishing that a contract was awarded to a higher bidder of a certain race states a claim absent any proffer as to the racial identity of the plaintiff corporation.

Private company reviewing bids and making a recommendation wasn't a state actor for purposes of the statute. Lack of investigation of bidding process insufficient for municipal liability.  No equal protection or due process claim where alleged discrimination was by the private entity of a private-public collaboration. No property interest in a lost contract bid, where the state actor had discretion to accept the bid.

Inner City Contracting LLC v. Charter Twp. of Northville

 

Fifth Circuit: Perry v. VHS San Antonio Partners

 

Although the hospital had the authority to order the physicians' group to terminate the services of one of its employees providing services at the hospital, that single fact is insufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact for trial on the question of whether the two enterprises were sufficiently integrated to create liability under the act.

The two entities also, as a matter of law, were not joint employers of the plaintiff, as the hospital did not have the power to hire, the plaintiff set his own schedule, and the two enterprises were not economically integrated.

Plaintiff did not have a contractual relationship with the hospital sufficient for a S1981 claim, and the two entities were sufficiently distinct to establish that he wasn't a contractor of the hospital.

Perry v. VHS San Antonio Partners

Seventh Circuit: Anthony Robinson v. Alfred Perales

As plaintiff did not present claim that deft and corporate deft were linked and declined to assert strict liability of one for the other during deliberations, no error in jury finding liability for one and not the other.

Explicit provision for nominal damages did not impermissibly suggest that non-monetary damages were appropriate.

Racial epithet and disparate treatment suffices to present an issue for trial on hostile work environment.

Statement of opposing party wasn't barred as hearsay.

Triable question of retaliation given facts.

Concerted attempts to end the plaintiff's career were sufficient for the verdict.

Court did not abuse its discretion in comparing the discussion of amounts of award in plaintiff's closing with actual award in declining to award fees.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-02/C:16-3390:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2180150:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Anthony Oliver v. Joint Logistics Managers, Inc

In a S1981 employment discrimination claim, A CBA provision allowing the employer to consider many factors in selecting employees for layoffs does not establish that the employer's use of seniority needs to be defended as nondiscriminatory.  (The burden doesn't shift.)

Allegation of discriminatory refusal to rehire is sufficiently rebutted by employer's contention that candidate's skills were insufficient.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-1633:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2172953:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Susan Shott v. Robert Katz

FRCP, S1981, Discrimination


Where a claim is dismissed without prejudice, an appeal filed prior to the final date for amendment becomes timely after that date has passed.

Under S1981, the claimed retaliation need not be employment-related.  It suffices that the claim arise from contract or employment-related events.

Implied retaliation by co-workers theory implies some level of agency with the employer.

Susan Shott v. Robert Katz 

Fourth Circuit: Monica Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments

Discrimination, S1981, Statute of Limitations


As the proof of nondiscriminatory motive followed the protected activity, there's sufficient evidence to go to trial on pretext.

The distinction between inappropriate comments and comments indicating animus is one for the finder of fact.

Individually time-barred discriminatory acts can still serve as basis for a timely hostile environment claim.

Broad ethnic aspersions can also suggest specific racial animus.

Totality shoudl be considered in hostile environment claims.


Monica Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments