JEETENDRA BHANDARI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reinstated its prior en banc decision, holding that the protections of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 do not extend to prohibit alienage discrimination by private persons.
The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's prior en banc decision in Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce and remanded for further considera…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Supreme Court Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In Bhandari v. First National Bank of Commerce, 829 F. 2d 1343 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc), we held that the protections of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 do not extend to prohibit alienage discrimination by private persons, despite the Supreme Court authority of Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976) that those protections do extend to prohibit racial discrimination by such persons. On writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court has now vacated our judgment and remanded Bhandari to us “for further consideration in light of Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. -, [109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132] (1989).” Having done so, we conclude that Patterson does not bear on our earlier decision; and we therefore reinstate that decision.
In Patterson, so far as is material here, the Court reaffirmed its decision in Runyon, declining to retreat from that holding despite having requested briefing on the question whether it was correctly decided. We arrived at our earlier en banc decision of this appeal in full recognition of the authority of Runyon, albeit expressing reservations along the way regarding its analysis; and its reaffirmance does not alter the precedential landscape that we must take into account in any relevant way. Those who dissented from our original en banc decision, while adhering to the views they there expressed on the merits of the issues, concur with the remainder of our court that Patterson does not affect today’s decision.1 Our earlier mandate is therefore reinstated; it is so
ORDERED.
. These are Judges Reavley, Politz, King, Johnson, Jerre S. Williams and W. Eugene Davis.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bhandari v. First Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 494 U.S. 1061 (U.S. 1990)
-
Britt v. The Grocers Supply Co., Inc., 978 F.2d 1441 (5th Cir. 1992)
Authorities Cited
- Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1989)
- Runyon et ux. v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1976)
- Jeetendra Bhandari v. First Nat'l Bank OF Commerce, 829 F.2d 1343 (5th Cir. 1987)