In Domanic v. Christian Brothers Automative Corporation, (5th Cir., Sept. 30, 2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Texas religion-based franchisor of auto-repair stores did not violate 42 USC §1981 by requiring that its franchisees be professing Christians. Christian Brothers described its mission as one to “glorify God by providing ethical and excellent services to its customers.” The court said in part:
All of [Christian Brothers] more than 250 franchisees—a group which includes some ethnic Jews—are professing Christians. When the company refused to franchise to Evan Domanic, who is an ethnic and religious Jew, Domanic sued for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981. The district court granted Christian Brothers summary judgment, ruling that its franchise policy constituted not racial but religious discrimination, which is not cognizable under § 1981.
On appeal, Domanic’s main argument is that discrimination against Jews is ipso facto racial discrimination, even when (as here) the differential treatment is motivated purely by religion and not ancestry. We decline to adopt this novel argument, which is in tension with the Supreme Court’s longstanding precedent that § 1981 does not reach religious discrimination…. [T]he Seventh Circuit … has twice rejected similar contentions about the indivisibility of Jewish ethnicity and faith under § 1981.
… [N]o evidence suggests that Christian Brothers’s franchise policy is a façade for ethnic discrimination against Jews….
Judge Oldham filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:
… In an appropriate case, our en banc court should reconsider our use of McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment generally and in § 1981 cases specifically.
Heartlander News reports on the decision.