Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Circuit split · employment law

Whether Title VII's mixed-motive same-decision provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B), applies to discrimination claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

  1. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · September 26, 2007

    “First, the majority creates a direct circuit split with the Eleventh Circuit, which correctly interpreted § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) to be inapplicable to § 1981.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
    Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

42 U.S.C. § 1981 — Equal rights under the law
“(a) Statement of equal rights 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. (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term …”
Read the full section →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:
Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz.374 F.3d 840
Statutes:
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) ·
42 U.S.C. § 1981 ·
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m) ·
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3
Doctrines & tests:
McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework ·
mixed-motive defense

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.