## Facts

- Chris Barfield, a Black customer, asked a Wichita, Kansas bank branch to exchange a $50 bill for smaller bills and was refused because he was not an account holder.
- The next day, James Barfield arranged for a white friend to make the same request; the friend received change without being asked about account status.
- Shortly thereafter, James Barfield sought change for a $100 bill and was told he would not be given change unless he was an account holder.
- James Barfield arranged additional testing involving a white reporter and a Black colleague; the Black tester was asked about account status while the white tester was not.
- The Barfields sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging race discrimination that interfered with contracting.
- While a motion to dismiss was pending, the Barfields sought class certification and leave to amend to add a Title VI claim; the district court denied both motions and dismissed the § 1981 claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether requesting a bank to exchange a large-denomination bill for smaller bills can qualify as a proposed contract (or a “phase” of a contractual relationship) protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, such that a racially motivated refusal states a claim.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add a Title VI claim based on insufficient factual allegations.

## Decision

- The court reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the § 1981 claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that exchanging currency for change may involve consideration and can constitute a contract or contractual incident within § 1981.
- The court affirmed the denial of leave to amend to add a Title VI claim because the proposed amendment lacked sufficient factual detail to state a claim and provide fair notice.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1981 plaintiff must plausibly allege (1) protected-class status, (2) intentional race discrimination, and (3) interference with an activity protected by § 1981; disputes may center on whether the conduct implicates “making and enforcing contracts.”
- “Make and enforce contracts” under § 1981 includes the making and performance of contracts and the enjoyment of benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
- In a retail or service setting, an offer to engage in a commercial transaction can constitute a protected contractual interest; minor transactions may qualify.
- Consideration can exist even where items exchanged have equal face value; subjective preference and exchange of value can satisfy consideration in a proposed transaction.
- Leave to amend may be denied where proposed new claims are pleaded in conclusory form and lack factual allegations necessary to state a plausible claim and give fair notice.

## Conclusion

The court held that a bank customer’s request to exchange a large bill for smaller bills can constitute a proposed contract protected by § 1981, so alleged race-based refusal to provide that service states a claim, but it upheld denial of leave to add a Title VI claim because the proposed amendment was not factually specific.


Barfield v. Commerce Bank, N.A., 484 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2007)