Abdullahi v. Prada Usa Corp.
| Citation | 520 F.3d 710 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-2489.,07-2489. |
| Parties | Parisima ABDULLAHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRADA USA CORP., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Parisima Abdullahi, Lake Bluff, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Paul A. Patten, Jackson Lewis, Chicago, IL, Joseph A. Saccomano, Jackson Lewis, White Plains, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before POSNER, FLAUM, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff was a salesperson at a Prada store, was fired, and has sued Prada for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The suit charges, under both statutes, discrimination and retaliation. The district judge dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim.
The principal issue is the meaning of "race" in section 1981, which provides, so far as relates to a case of employment discrimination, that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens." The plaintiff's Title VII claims, with (as we'll see) one exception, are time-barred, but not her section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims. The judge thought them barred for a different reason — that they did not charge racial discrimination. Her original complaint did, along with discrimination on the basis of national origin (she was born in Iran) and religion (Muslim). But in her amended complaint (which like the original one was on a standard complaint form for employment discrimination supplied by the Northern District of Illinois and used mainly by unrepresented plaintiffs, such as the plaintiff in this case, and which has boxes, each for a different type of discrimination, that the plaintiff can place a check mark in), unlike her original complaint, only the "national origin" and "religion" boxes were checked. There is also a box marked "color," which was not checked in either complaint.
Race, nationality, and ethnicity are sometimes correlated, but they are not synonyms. A racial group as the term is generally used in the United States today is a group having a common ancestry and distinct physical traits. The largest groups are whites, blacks, and East Asians. Iran is a country, not a race, and an "Iranian" is simply a native of Iran. Iranians and other Central Asians are generally regarded as "white," whatever their actual skin color; many Indians, for example, are dark. Some Central Asians are indistinguishable in appearance from Europeans, or from Americans whose ancestors came from Europe, while others (besides Indians), for example Saudi Arabians, would rarely be mistaken for Europeans. Some Iranians, especially if they speak English with an Iranian accent, might, though not dark-skinned, strike some Americans as sufficiently different looking and sounding from the average American of European ancestry to provoke the kind of hostility associated with racism. Yet hostility to an Iranian might instead be based on the fact that Iran is regarded as an enemy of the United States, though most immigrants to the United States from Iran are not friends of the current regime. So one would like to know whether the plaintiff is charging that the discrimination against her is based on politics or on her seeming to be member of a foreign "race." (Her brief is unclear on the point.)
That would be a loose sense of the word "race," but the loose sense is the right one to impute to a race statute passed in 1866. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 611-13, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987), it was routine then to refer to nationalities or ethnic groups as races — the "German race," for example. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Guam
......So, for example, Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp . stated that "[a] racial group as the term is generally used in the United ......
-
Elzeftawy v. Pernix Grp., Inc.
......claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (cleaned up). 6 The ... , 481 U.S. at 611-12, 107 S.Ct. 2022. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit explained in Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp. , with respect to an Iranian plaintiff, that discrimination can be either ......
-
Shamim v. Siemens Indus., Inc.
......Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir.2008) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “To survive a motion to ...Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 45 F.3d 223, 230 (7th Cir.1995)); see also Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp., 520 F.3d 710, 712 (7th Cir.2008) (noting that the loose sense of the term ......
-
Williams v. Wendler
..."racial" discrimination within the same race, broadly defined, because "race" is a fuzzy term, as we noted in Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp., 520 F.3d 710, 711-13 (7th Cir.2008); see Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609-13, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987); Holcomb v. ......
-
Race and national origin discrimination
...held that derogatory rumors made after filing a charge of discrimination supported a claim for retaliation. Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp , 520 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2008). The Seventh Circuit distinguished between direct and indirect methods of proving retaliation saying, “[u] nder the indirect......
-
Age discrimination
...held that derogatory rumors made after filing a charge of discrimination supported a claim for retaliation. Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp , 520 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2008). Title VII protects an employee who complains of discrimination by a third party. Flowers v. Columbia College Chicago , 397 ......
-
Gender discrimination and sexual harassment
...held that derogatory rumors made after filing a charge of discrimination supported a claim for retaliation. Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp , 520 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2008).Title VII protects an employee who complains of discrimination by a third party. Flowers v. Columbia College Chicago , 397 F......
-
CROSS-STATUTE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS AND THE NEED FOR A "SUPER STATUTE".
...See Johnson 421 U.S. at 459-60; Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160(1976). (53.) 481 U.S. 604 (1987). See also Abdullahi v. Prada USA Corp., 520 F.3d 710, 712 (7th Cir. 2008) (stating that a "loose sense" of race "is the right one to impute to a race statute passed in 1866"). (54.) AlKhazraji, ......