|
''Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald'', 546 U.S. 470 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving claims for racial discrimination against the right to make and enforce contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a key civil rights provision in U.S. law that was originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, that because agents of parties to contracts do not personally have rights under those contracts, they cannot state a claim under section 1981. == Background == John McDonald, an African American entrepreneur, was the sole shareholder and president of JWM Investments, Inc. (JWM), a company organized under Nevada law. JWM and the restaurant chain Domino's Pizza entered into several contracts, under which JWM was to construct four restaurants in the Las Vegas area and then lease them to Domino's. McDonald claimed〔Because the trial court disposed of McDonald's case for failure to state a claim, the truth of McDonald's factual allegations were never determined by a court. Instead, the court ruled that, even assuming his allegations of fact were completely true, the law did not afford him a remedy.〕 that after the first restaurant was built, Domino's agent refused to execute documents that the contracts required to facilitate JWM's bank financing, and convinced the Las Vegas Valley Water District to change its recorded ownership of the land slated for restaurant construction from JWM to Domino's (which McDonald managed to subsequently change back). McDonald wanted to see the contracts completed, but claimed that the agent threatened "serious consequences" if he did not back out. The agent was alleged to have said to McDonald "I don't like dealing with you people anyway," a phrase she did not explain. The contracts were never completed, and at least in part because of that JWM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee for JWM initiated an adversary proceeding against Domino's for breach of contract, which was settled for a $45,000 payment to JWM and a complete release of all claims between the parties. While the bankruptcy proceedings were still ongoing, McDonald personally filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on the argument that Domino's broke its contracts with JWM because of racial animus towards McDonald.〔It is unknown why the trustee did not raise a § 1981 claim against Domino's on behalf of JWM. In its opinion, the Supreme Court observed that every court of appeals to consider the issue has concluded that corporations may bring such a claim.〕 McDonald claimed that the breach had harmed him personally by causing monetary damages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and humiliation. Domino's filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.〔This ground for dismissal is set forth under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and is often referred to in federal civil practice simply as a 12(b)(6) motion.〕 It argued that because McDonald was not himself a party to a contract with Domino's, he could not bring a § 1981 claim against it. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed McDonald's suit, stating that Domino's had "relied on the basic proposition that a corporation is a separate legal entity from its stockholders and officers," which means that "a president or sole shareholder may not step into the shoes of the corporation and assert that claim personally." The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal.〔''McDonald v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.'', 107 Fed. Appx. 18 (9th Cir. 2004).〕 Though it agreed that an "injury suffered only by the corporation" would not permit a shareholder to bring a § 1981 action, the court concluded that, based on its prior decision in ''Gomez v. Alexian Bros. Hospital of San Jose'', 698 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1983), a nonparty like McDonald may nonetheless bring suit under § 1981 when he has suffered "injuries distinct from that of the corporation." The court acknowledged that this approach set it apart from the precedents of other Circuits. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari.〔''Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald'', 544 U.S. 998 (2005).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|