Term: 2019
Docket: 18-1171
Comcast Corp. v. National Association Of African American-owned Media
- Pro
18-1171 COMCAST CORPORATION V. NAT. ASSN. OF AFRICAN AM.OWNED MEDIA AND ENT. STUDIOS NET., INC. DECISION BELOW: 743 Fed.Appx. 106 GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 6/10/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: Entertainment Studios Networks ("ESN") owns several television networks that it sought to have carried on Comcast's cable system. Comcast and ESN met multiple times to discuss a potential deal, but Comcast ultimately declined to carry ESN's networks. ESN's response was to sue Comcast, claiming that Comcast's decision was based on an outlandish racist conspiracy between Comcast, the NAACP, and other civil- rights groups and leaders to disadvantage wholly African American-owned networks in violation of 42U.S.C. § 1981. The district court dismissed ESN's complaint three times, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court first ruled that Section 1981 does not require but-for causation, thereby exacerbating a conflict with the decisions of five other courts of appeals. It then held that ESN's claim was plausible despite the alternative explanations for Comcast's conduct on the face of the complaint, and the complaint's failure to allege facts showing that the other companies with which Comcast contracted were similarly situated to ESN. The questions presented are: 1. Does a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fail in the absence of but-for causation? 2. Can a plaintiff state a plausible claim for relief if the complaint does not allege facts tending to exclude obvious alternative explanations for the challenged conduct and does not allege facts to support all elements of the claim? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-56479
The U.S. Supreme Court case Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media (2019) revolved around a racial discrimination claim made by Entertainment Studios Network, owned by the National Association of African American-Owned Media (NAAAOM), against Comcast Corporation. NAAAOM alleged that Comcast had violated section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracting, when it refused to carry channels from Entertainment Studios Network due to racially discriminatory motives. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Comcast with a unanimous decision stating that for such claims under Section 1981 to proceed into advanced stages of litigation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that race was not just a motivating factor but rather the determining reason behind their contractual harm - also known as "but-for" causation.
In the dissenting opinion for Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 42 U.S.C §1981, arguing that it was too narrow and restrictive. She contended that a plaintiff should only need to show race as a motivating factor in contract decisions rather than needing to prove it was the sole reason for denial or termination of contracts. The justice argued this approach would be more consistent with other civil rights laws and better serve Congress' intent to eradicate racial discrimination in all forms of contracting. Furthermore, she expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially make it harder for victims of subtle or covert discrimination to seek legal remedies by raising their burden of proof at an early stage in litigation.
