Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
L. N. McDONALD and Raymond Laird, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The SANTE FE TRAIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees, 1975 — 513 F.2d 90 · caselaw · US
General
L. N. McDONALD and Raymond Laird, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The SANTE FE TRAIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees
513 F.2d 90·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
L. N. McDONALD and Raymond Laird, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The SANTE FE TRAIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 74-2813.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 21, 1975.
James Bullock, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Benjamin R. Powel, Robert W. Alexander, Galveston, Tex., for Sante Fe Trail Transp.
James P. Wolf, Houston, Tex., for Local 988.
Before WISDOM, SIMPSON and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 gives all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States the same right to equal benefit of the laws “as is enjoyed by white citizens.” The district court held that this section confers no actionable rights upon white persons, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the § 1981 claim brought by the two white plaintiffs. We affirm. Perkins v. Banster, 190 F.Supp. 98 (D.Md.), aff’d, 285 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1960); Kurylas v. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 373 F.Supp. 1072 (D.D.C.1974); Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 368 F.Supp. 829 (N.D.Cal.1973); Ripp v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., 366 F.Supp. 205 (N.D.Ala.1973). Contra, WRMA Broadcasting Co. v. Hawthorne, 365 F.Supp. 577 (M.D.Ala.1973); Gannon v. Action, 303 F.Supp. 1240 (E.D.Mo.1969), aff’d in part, remanded in part on other grounds, 450 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1971); Central Presbyterian Church v. Black Liberation Front, 303 F.Supp. 894 (E.D.Mo.1969).
We likewise agree with the district court’s conclusion that an employer’s dismissal of white employees charged with misappropriating company property while not dismissing a similarly charged black employee does not raise a claim upon which relief may be granted under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. There is no allegation that the plaintiffs were falsely charged. Disciplinary action for offenses not constituting crimes is not involved in this case. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Cf. NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240, 59 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed. 627 (1939); Nix v. NLRB, 418 F.2d 1001, 1006 (5th Cir. 1969); AHI Machine Tool & Die, Inc. v. NLRB, 432 F.2d 190 (6th Cir. 1970).
Affirmed.