Reported / Citable
Background
Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation is a faith-based auto-repair franchisor that awards 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 rather than Christian.
Domanic sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in contracting. The district court found that he had established a prima facie case but granted Christian Brothers summary judgment under the McDonnell Douglas framework because its Christian-only policy was a legitimate, race-neutral reason for the decision and Domanic produced no evidence of pretext.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It explained that § 1981 protects against intentional discrimination based on Jewish ancestry or ethnicity but does not prohibit discrimination based solely on religion. The court rejected Domanic’s argument that discrimination against a Jewish person is necessarily racial discrimination under § 1981 regardless of whether the decision was motivated by ancestry or faith.
The undisputed evidence showed that Christian Brothers had consistently limited franchises to professing Christians and had awarded franchises to at least two ethnic Jews who were Christian. Because no evidence indicated 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 whether First Amendment church-autonomy doctrines protected the franchisor because the record was insufficiently developed on that issue.
Judge Oldham concurred in the judgment. He would have denied the company’s invocation of the ministerial exception without prejudice at the outset and questioned the Fifth Circuit’s use of the McDonnell Douglas framework at summary judgment, particularly for § 1981 claims outside the employment context.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1981 protects people of Jewish ancestry from racial or ethnic discrimination in contracting, but it does not cover discrimination motivated solely by religion.
- A religious criterion does not become racial discrimination merely because religion and ethnicity may overlap; evidence that the stated criterion masks ancestral discrimination could nevertheless require a trial.
- The court left unresolved whether the First Amendment’s church-autonomy doctrines apply to Christian Brothers or its franchise relationships.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a clear line in the Fifth Circuit between discrimination against Jewish ancestry, which § 1981 reaches, and discrimination based solely on Jewish faith, which it does not. Plaintiffs challenging religious contracting criteria under § 1981 must produce evidence that ancestry or ethnicity—not merely religion—was a but-for cause of the challenged decision.
The separate concurrence also signals continuing judicial concern about applying McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment and extending that Title VII-derived framework to nonemployment claims under § 1981.