Background
Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation, a faith-based auto-repair franchisor, offers franchises only to professing Christians. Evan Domanic, who is ethnically and religiously Jewish, applied for a franchise in 2020. The company ended the application process after learning that he was Jewish and not Christian.
Domanic sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in contracting. The district court granted Christian Brothers summary judgment, concluding under the McDonnell Douglas framework that its Christian-only policy was a legitimate, race-neutral reason for the decision and that Domanic had not shown the policy was a pretext for discrimination based on Jewish ancestry.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It explained that § 1981 protects against intentional discrimination based on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, even though Jewish people may now be classified as white, but does not prohibit discrimination based solely on religion. The court rejected Domanic’s argument that discrimination against Jews necessarily constitutes racial discrimination under § 1981 regardless of whether it is motivated by ancestry or faith.
The undisputed evidence showed that Christian Brothers consistently franchises only to professing Christians of varied racial and ethnic backgrounds, including at least two ethnic Jews. Because no evidence suggested that the religious qualification was a façade for discrimination against Jewish ancestry, Domanic’s claim could not proceed to a jury. The court declined to decide Christian Brothers’ alternative First Amendment church-autonomy defense because the record was insufficiently developed.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1981 covers intentional discrimination based on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity, but not discrimination based solely on Jewish religious faith.
- A policy favoring members of a particular religion does not become racial discrimination under § 1981 merely because religion and ethnicity may overlap.
- Christian Brothers was entitled to summary judgment because the record contained no evidence that its Christian-only franchise policy was a pretext for ethnic antisemitism.
- Judge Oldham concurred in the judgment, arguing that courts must address the ministerial exception at the outset and questioning the use of McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment and in § 1981 cases.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm line between ancestry-based and religion-based discrimination under § 1981. Jewish plaintiffs remain protected when adverse contracting decisions are motivated by ethnicity or ancestry, but § 1981 does not supply a remedy when the evidence establishes only religious discrimination.
The ruling also underscores the evidentiary importance of pretext: a formally religious policy may support a § 1981 claim if evidence shows it conceals ethnic discrimination, but the claim cannot survive summary judgment without such evidence.