Kenneth G. Hicks, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Brown Group, Inc., D/B/A Brown Shoe Company, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee
902 F.2d 630 | Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | 1990
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Kenneth Hicks sued Brown Shoe Company after being fired, claiming racial discrimination violated federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1981). A jury found the company guilty and awarded him $10,000 in punitive damages plus attorney fees. The appeals court upheld the verdict, ruling that discriminatory discharge is illegal because it destroys the core benefit of an employment contract. This matters to subcontractors because it establishes that race-based firing is actionable and can result in significant financial penalties for companies.
Key Takeaways
- •Discriminatory discharge based on race violates federal law and is fully actionable in court—companies cannot defend this conduct
- •Punitive damages and attorney fees are available remedies, not just back pay, making discrimination cases costly for employers
- •Document all employment decisions and communications to defend against discrimination claims; lack of clear documentation strengthens plaintiff cases
Discriminatory discharge goes to the very existence and nature of the employment contract.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a subcontractor or employee sue for being fired because of their race?
Yes. Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1981) makes race-based firing illegal and actionable in court. An employee can recover punitive damages, attorney fees, and other remedies. Courts have consistently upheld these claims, so employers cannot defend discriminatory discharge on any grounds.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.