Whether a plaintiff was required to file a Section 1981 claim instead of a Section 1983 claim in an employment discrimination case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED WAS APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF REQUIRED TO FILE $1981 CLAIM OPPOSED TO $1983 CLAIM Employment Discrimination Cases usually proceed under Title VII and other statutes as , well as 42 U.S.C. Sec 1981 that allows an individual to sue public employees under both which prohibits employment discrimination. The Defendant’s attorney as well as the District Court failed to consider the 1991 Amendment of 42 U.S.C. $1981 and the inclusion of remedy provisions in the new $1981 (a) which explains the scope of the statute to include an instant action. This Court should find the $1981 as supplement $1981 (a) has its own basis for recovery. The 1991 Amendment of 42 U.S.C. $1981 outlines a clear intention of damages remedy under $1981 that does not require a Plaintiff to refer to $1983 remedies to obtain relief or state a claim. The Amendment clearly provide for a claim and remedies against a state actor. As indicated on Page 10, Paragraph 3 of the District Court Memorandum And Order under 2-Section 1981 claims the Defendant USD 501 is a state actor. This Court should also be informed that according to the Legislative History of the 1991 Amendment it list the following regular purposes: 1.) To provide appropriate remedies for intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the work place 2.) To expand the scope of relevant Civil Rights Statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of Discrimination 42 U.S.C. $1991 Sec 3 Purposes (Pub. L. 102166 Nov. 21 1991, 105 Stat. 1071 Civil Rights Act of 1991 ) 3.) Provides the right to recover Compensatory Damages In another perspective as to viewing Discrimination and Retaliation as it relates to this case is that first Mr. Brown is asserting that the treatment he has received past and present constitutes improper discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. $1981. Second, the continued rejection of Mr. Brown’s employment applications by USD 501 constitutes retaliation in violation of these same laws. The analyis of the discrimination and retaliation claims is essentially the same under both $1981 and Title VII. It should also be noted that a Plaintiff can show discrimination by way of of direct evidence or with circumstantial evidence. Sanders v. Southwestern Bell Tel. LP 544 F. 3d 1101, 1105 (10" Cir 2008 ) If a Plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence the Court will have to analize the claim using the McDonald Douglas burden shifting analysis citing McDonald : Douglas Corporation v. Green 411 U.S. 792 (1973 ) Also, any Federal Claims presented by the Plaintiff will reference 42 U.S.C. $1981 and these claims will merge with $1983 claims and will not be dismissed. Carleton v. City of Phila 2007 WL 633279 at (ED PA March 30, 2004 ) The legitimate non-discriminatory reason given by the USD 501 Administration not to have Mr. Brown rehired simply has no merit and the J Administration own admission they continued to grant Mr. Brown contract renewal for 16 years. | PARTIES The Petitioner is Mark E. Brown The Respondent is Unified School District USD 501 . eo y . [1