Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Artur Davis v. Legal Services Alabama, Inc., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 20-12886-BB · judgment December 2, 2021
Before the decision, about 1.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to” the person’s “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Section 1981 of Title 42 provides “[a]ll persons” in the United States “the same right” “to make and enforce contracts” as is “enjoyed by white citizens,” including “the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)-(b). The Eleventh Circuit held below that these prohibitions do not bar an employer from suspending an employee with pay because of his race. In its view, an employer who suspends an employee because he is Black is liable only if the suspension results in a loss of pay or is “similarly significant.” The question presented is: Do Title VII and Section 1981 prohibit discrimination as to all “terms,” “conditions,” or “privileges” of employment, or are they limited to “significant” discriminatory employer actions only?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Brian Wolfman
Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic
For respondent
Albert Loring Vreeland II
Lehr Middlebrooks, et al.
Proceedings
- Apr 29 2024Petition DENIED.
- Apr 22 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2024.
- Jun 29 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2023.
- Jun 06 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023.
- Jun 05 2023Supplemental brief of petitioner Artur Davis filed. (Distributed)
- Jun 02 2023Supplemental brief of respondents Legal Services Alabama, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- May 18 2023Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
- Jan 09 2023The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
- Dec 21 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
- Dec 20 2022Reply of petitioner Artur Davis filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 06 2022Brief of respondents Legal Services Alabama, et al. in opposition filed.
- Oct 19 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 7, 2022.
- Oct 18 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 7, 2022 to December 7, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 06 2022Response Requested. (Due November 7, 2022)
- Oct 05 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/28/2022.
- Oct 03 2022Waiver of right of respondent Legal Services Alabama, et al. to respond filed.
- Sep 08 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 13, 2022)
- Aug 03 2022Application (21A863) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 9, 2022.
- Jul 29 2022Application (21A863) to extend further the time from August 12, 2022 to September 9, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas.
- Jun 27 2022Application (21A863) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until August 12, 2022.
- Jun 23 2022Application (21A863) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 13, 2022 to September 11, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas.