898 F. Supp. 2d 986
M.D. Tenn.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, African-American men, allege they were denied the Bachelor/Bachelorette casting in 2011.
- Shows The Bachelor and The Bachelorette are produced for ABC; casting involves contracts and compensation, housing, travel, and celebrity opportunities.
- Plaintiffs contend defendants maintain a policy of casting only white leads to avoid interracial relationships and alleged controversy.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification of all non-white applicants and injunctive relief prohibiting discriminatory casting and requiring non-white finalists.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and alternatively to strike injunctive/class allegations; party also move to transfer venue; court later grants dismissal as barred by First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does First Amendment bar §1981 claims here? | Claybrooks argues §1981 is applicable and not preempted by First Amendment. | ABC contends First Amendment shields casting decisions from discrimination laws. | First Amendment bars the §1981 claim in this context. |
| Are casting decisions protected speech when tied to a show's content? | Casting is integral to message; plaintiffs seek content change under §1981. | Casting is conduct with limited First Amendment protection. | Casting decisions are protected to control a show's expressive content; §1981 cannot force race-neutral casting here. |
| Should other motions be considered moot given the First Amendment ruling? | N/A | N/A | Yes; other motions (to strike, transfer, and related notices) denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required to proceed)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1995) (First Amendment protects expressive content from discrimination)
- Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1974) (conduct with communicative element is protected speech)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1989) (flag burning as expressive conduct protected by First Amendment)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1971) (protection for expressive attire as speech)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (U.S. 1969) (student expression protected unless materially disrupts school operations)