In Gregori, Antonio v. Hometown Foods USA, LLC, No. 23-cv-23356-ALTMAN/Reid, 2024 WL 474374 (S.D.Fla. Feb. 7, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s – Hispanic male of Peruvian national origin – claim of race discrimination asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
From the decision:
Having determined that the Plaintiff needn’t identify comparators at this stage of the case, we ask only (as the Miller Court did) whether Gregori has stated a plausible claim for discrimination under § 1981. We find that he has. In order to state a claim [for discrimination] under § 1981, the plaintiff must allege (1) intentional racial discrimination (2) that caused a contractual injury. In his Complaint, Gregori alleges that the Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices and discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, by treating Plaintiff differently from similarly situated employees because of his Race, Color, and Ethnicity (Hispanic). In support of this claim, he says that he was subjected to highly offensive, derogatory, and discriminatory remarks and comments about his race and ethnicity, and that the Defendant ridiculed and made fun of [him] by calling him names like ‘Indio’ [and] ‘Indigena’ in a derogatory fashion. He also claims that the Defendant’s intentional discrimination willfully interfered with Plaintiff’s…enjoyment of all benefits, privileges terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship of his employment at TRIBUTE BAKING COMPANY. That’s enough to state a viable claim for now. [Citations, bracketing, and internal quotation marks omitted.]
The court went to explain that plaintiff likewise plausibly alleged a claim of retaliation, arising from his complaints to his manager about racial discrimination.