Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji

1987-06-22

Headline: Court affirms that Americans of Arabian ancestry are protected from racial discrimination under Section 1981 and that the professor’s lawsuit was timely, allowing his tenure discrimination claim to proceed.

Holding: The Court held that a U.S. citizen of Arabian ancestry can bring a race-discrimination claim under Section 1981 because Congress intended to protect ancestry-based discrimination, and the professor’s lawsuit was timely under existing Circuit law.

Real World Impact:

Allows people of Arabian ancestry to sue for race discrimination under Section 1981.
Employers and colleges can face liability for ancestry-based discrimination, not only modern racial labels.
Court let the professor’s case proceed because the lawsuit was timely under prior Third Circuit rules.

Topics: race discrimination, employment rights, ancestry discrimination, statute of limitations

Summary

Background

A U.S. citizen born in Iraq worked as an associate professor at a college and was denied tenure. He filed complaints with state and federal agencies and then sued in federal court, alleging discrimination based on national origin, religion, and race and adding a claim under a federal law now called Section 1981. The District Court dismissed some claims and ruled that Section 1981 did not cover discrimination based on Arabian ancestry; the Court of Appeals disagreed and allowed the §1981 claim to go forward.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed two questions: whether the professor’s suit was filed on time and whether people of Arabian ancestry can be protected by Section 1981. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that applying a newer, shorter filing deadline retroactively would be unfair, so the suit was timely. The Court also looked at how Congress and 19th-century sources understood “race” and concluded that Section 1981 reaches discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic characteristics, even if modern classifications might label some groups as “Caucasian.” The Court held that a distinctive appearance is not required, but the plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination based on ancestry rather than only on birthplace or religion.

Real world impact

The decision allows employees and other private parties to pursue race-discrimination claims when they were treated badly because of ancestry or ethnic group, including Arabian ancestry. It sends the case back so the professor can try to prove he was denied tenure for being Arab. The ruling on timeliness means prior longer filing rules in that Circuit applied to this suit.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan concurred, cautioning that ancestry and national origin often overlap and that the line between them can be unclear.