October Term 2005 · Docket 04-593
Does corporate ownership strip an individual of federal contract rights?
Domino's argues John McDonald lost his 1981 protections by forming a corporation. McDonald claims the federal law applies to him personally.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Mahoney argued the complaint alleged Domino's breached its contract with JWM.
She stated the complaint did not allege violations of McDonald's personal contracts.
Mr. Lichtenstein argued John McDonald forfeited his 1981 protection by choosing corporate ownership.
He contended section 1981 imposes a nondiscrimination duty outside contract law.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether federal anti-discrimination law protects individuals who own corporations. Domino's says corporate form changes the legal relationship. McDonald says the law protects the person, not just the entity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 6, 2005.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
Domino's wants the Court to rule that corporate ownership voids individual federal contract rights.
McDonald wants the Court to rule that federal law protects him personally despite his corporate structure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
What each side says
Domino's argues that forming a corporation forfeits the individual's 1981 statutory protection.
McDonald argues that section 1981 imposes a nonnegotiable duty that ignores corporate form.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked what damages the plaintiff sought in this specific case.
Justice Kennedy asked if a directly discriminated individual can recover emotional distress damages alongside lost profits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-9
Why it matters
This dispute defines the scope of federal anti-discrimination protections for business owners. It determines whether corporate structures can shield companies from individual liability. The outcome shapes how small business owners access federal courts for contract disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-54 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.