Changes

In ''Davis v. Halpern'', 768 F. Supp. 968, 983 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), the [[federal court]] for the Eastern District of New York held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 will support a claim of reverse discrimination.  The Court cited ''McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co.'', 427 U.S. 273, 295-96, 96 S. Ct. 2574, 2585-86, 49 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1976)).  

In '''''Davis v. Halpern''''', 768 F. Supp. 968, 983 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), the [[federal court]] for the Eastern District of New York held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 will support a claim of reverse discrimination.  The Court cited ''McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co.'', 427 U.S. 273, 295-96, 96 S. Ct. 2574, 2585-86, 49 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1976)).  

In reverse race-discrimination cases, however, the [[Eighth Circuit]] requires that the'' prima facie'' case "include a showing 'that background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'" ''Hammer v. Ashcroft'', 383 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2004)(quotation omitted). When a plaintiff neither alleges nor offers any evidence that he was discharged because he is white or that the employer discriminates against white employees, then his claim will likely be dismissed.

In reverse race-discrimination cases, however, the [[Eighth Circuit]] requires that the'' prima facie'' case "include a showing 'that background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'" ''Hammer v. Ashcroft'', 383 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2004)(quotation omitted). When a plaintiff neither alleges nor offers any evidence that he was discharged because he is white or that the employer discriminates against white employees, then his claim will likely be dismissed.