## Facts

- In the early morning of April 30, 1999, several students, including four African-American plaintiffs, gathered in the University of Rochester library lobby.
- A university security officer told the group to disperse and demanded identification; he questioned whether the students were university students.
- After a student displayed one plaintiff’s identification, the officer took the ID, radioed the Rochester Police Department, and followed the group outside.
- As one plaintiff attempted to leave with another in a car, the officer positioned himself in front of the car, prevented departure, and copied the license plate.
- Police arrived and arrested the four plaintiffs; they spent the night in jail and later received adjournments in contemplation of dismissal.
- Plaintiffs alleged the security officers escalated the encounter because the gathering was mostly minority students and that the resulting arrests and prosecutions reflected racially discriminatory treatment.
- Plaintiffs sued the university and security personnel, including a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981’s “equal benefit” clause; the district court dismissed that claim on the ground it required state action.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981’s equal benefit clause requires proof of state action.
2. If state action is not required, what a plaintiff must allege to state an equal benefit claim within the clause’s text limiting it to “laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.”

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the § 1981 equal benefit claim and remanded.
- The court held that § 1981’s equal benefit clause does not require a traditional state-action showing and may reach private conduct.
- The court cautioned that the clause’s scope is limited by its terms; plaintiffs must tie the alleged racial discrimination to deprivation (or attempted deprivation) of equal benefit of laws or proceedings aimed at the security of persons or property.
- The court did not finally decide whether the complaint satisfied the narrowed standard; it required reconsideration under the correct legal framework.

## Legal Principles

- The equal benefit clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 can be violated by private actors; a plaintiff need not plead state action as would be required for Fourteenth Amendment or § 1983 claims.
- The clause is constrained to discrimination affecting “the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.”
- To state an equal benefit claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege (1) racially motivated conduct and (2) a resulting deprivation or attempted deprivation of equal benefit of a qualifying protective law or proceeding.
- The equal benefit clause protects equality in access to and protection from legal processes and protections, distinct from § 1981’s contract-related protections.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit ruled that § 1981’s equal benefit clause does not incorporate a state-action requirement and can apply to private defendants, but it applies only where racially motivated conduct deprives plaintiffs of equal benefit of laws or proceedings designed to secure persons or property; the dismissal was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings under that standard.


Phillip v. Univ. of Rochester, 316 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2003)