This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because there was no alternative theory and the parties did not move for leave to amend.
According to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), according to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), lichtenstein contended that Section 1981 imposes a nondiscrimination duty that is not a contractual provision and that intentional racial discrimination is more akin to a tort than a breach of contract.
According to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), according to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), lichtenstein also stated that the complaint does not allege a tortious interference claim and that the case is a Section 1981 discrimination claim.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Kennedy asked whether the plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress in addition to loss of profits.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the dispute is a matter of federal contract law, common law, or state law, and whether Section 1981 applies as a third‑party beneficiary.
Justice Kennedy asked if the claim is stronger than a tortious interference claim because the target is the party itself.
Justice O'Connor asked where in the complaint it alleges a tortious interference claim.
Justice Stevens asked whether the individual plaintiff asserted the Section 1981 claim before the settlement of the corporate claim.
Justice Scalia asked whether recovery by the corporation would be effectively recovery by John McDonald.
- [1] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 40
What each side argues
Petitioner (Domino's Pizza, Inc.)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Respondent (John McDonald)
According to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), according to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), lichtenstein contended that Section 1981 imposes a nondiscrimination duty that is not a contractual provision and that intentional racial discrimination is more akin to a tort than a breach of contract.
According to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), according to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), lichtenstein stated that the complaint does not allege a tortious interference claim and that the case is a Section 1981 discrimination claim.
According to MR. LICHTENSTEIN, lichtenstein noted that the corporate form gives certain protections, but it does not protect corporate officers or shareholders from their own tortious behavior.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned the scope of damages, including whether emotional distress could be recovered.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the dispute should be decided under federal contract law, common law, or state law, and whether Section 1981 applies as a third‑party beneficiary.
Justice Kennedy also asked if the claim is stronger than a tortious interference claim because the target is the party itself.
Justice O'Connor asked where in the complaint it alleges a tortious interference claim.
Justice Stevens asked whether the individual plaintiff asserted the Section 1981 claim before the settlement of the corporate claim.
Justice Scalia asked whether recovery by the corporation would be effectively recovery by John McDonald.
According to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), according to Allen Lichtenstein (Respondent), lichtenstein argued that Section 1981 imposes a nondiscrimination duty not based on contract law and that the case is a discrimination claim, not tortious interference.
- [1] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 40
- [7] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 25
- [8] 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdf, p. 26
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 2bea3d0f7240e2727ad7-r1-828be96c4449a35b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.