Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
Headline: Court restores a workplace racial-discrimination case for reargument and asks whether its prior reading of the civil-rights law (§1981) that covers private discrimination should be reconsidered.
Holding: The Court restored the case for reargument and asked whether Runyon v. McCrary’s interpretation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 should be reconsidered, without overruling Runyon at this time.
- Opens possibility that §1981’s reach to private discrimination could be narrowed.
- Creates uncertainty for victims relying on §1981 for workplace claims.
- Prompts rebriefing and reargument in this case, delaying a final outcome.
Summary
Background
A woman who said she was harassed at work because of her race sued a private credit union under a federal civil-rights law, 42 U.S.C. §1981. The question presented is whether that law reaches private racial discrimination in employment and similar settings. The parties asked the Court to decide whether §1981 covers such workplace claims.
Reasoning
The Court restored the case to the calendar and ordered the parties to rebrief and reargue a focused question: should the Court reconsider its earlier decision in Runyon v. McCrary that §1981 applies to private acts of racial discrimination. The Court said it had not overruled Runyon, but that petitioner's arguments raised difficulties warranting further consideration. The order noted past instances where the Court requested reargument to reconsider prior statutory rulings and emphasized equal treatment of litigants when evaluating precedent.
Real world impact
This order is not a final decision on whether §1981 reaches private employers or private schools. It opens the possibility that the Court may revisit settled interpretations of the statute. Many lower courts rely on Runyon, and the reargument could lead to changes that affect people who bring private-discrimination claims. The Court’s action may also create uncertainty while the issue is litigated further.
Dissents or concurrances
Four Justices dissented from the order, arguing reexamination is unwise. They warned it would unsettle reliance on civil-rights protections, criticized the timing and method, and stressed congressional acquiescence and widespread lower-court reliance on Runyon.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?