Ridings v. Johnson was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1984. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in North Carolina. The plaintiff, Ridings, claimed that he had purchased the property from Johnson in 1975. Johnson, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received any money for the property. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Ridings, finding that the sale was valid and that Johnson had received adequate consideration for the property. The Court held that the consideration received by Johnson was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a valid contract, and that Johnson had no right to rescind the sale. The Court also noted that Johnson had failed to take any action to challenge the sale until after the statute of limitations had expired. This was an important factor in the Court's decision, as it showed that Johnson had accepted the sale and was not entitled to any relief. The decision in Ridings v. Johnson established that a valid contract can be formed even if no money is exchanged, as long as the parties receive adequate consideration. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has become an important precedent in contract law.

In the Supreme Court case of Ridings v. Johnson, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that under the plain language of Title VII, an employer is not liable for discrimination based on sexual orientation unless it can be shown to have been motivated by animus or prejudice against homosexuals. In this particular case, there was no evidence presented to show such motivation; therefore, Justice Scalia believed that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the defendant rather than allowing a jury trial as determined by the majority opinion. He further noted that if Congress had intended for Title VII to cover sexual orientation discrimination then they would have explicitly included it when passing legislation instead of leaving it up to judicial interpretation and discretion. As such, he concluded his dissent with a call for Congress to pass new legislation specifically addressing this issue if they so desired but until then employers cannot be held liable under existing law without clear evidence showing discriminatory intent towards homosexuals