Case: Brian Armstrong v. WB Studio Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 25-1139
Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-03-31
Status: Pending
Question Presented: 1. Should a judge or a jury decide the fact intensive question of whether intentional discrimination against white people in the workplace—done pursuant to a corporate DEI policy—satisfies the "but for" causation standard in 42 U.S.C. § 1981? 2. Whether, under the "but for" causation standard established in Comcast Corp. v. National Ass’n of African American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327 (2020), a court may grant summary judgment by examining only the actions of a single subordinate decision-maker ...
On March 26, 2026, petitioner Brian Armstrong filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision concerning his race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A response from the respondents is due April 30, 2026.
Armstrong, a white employee, alleged that WB Studio Enterprises discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of Section 1981, pointing to evidence that supervisors above his immediate decision-maker directed race-conscious hiring as part of a broader corporate DEI initiative.
The petition raises two questions with real procedural weight. First, it asks whether “but for” causation under Section 1981 is a jury question when the facts are genuinely disputed. Second, and more technically significant, it challenges whether courts may satisfy the Comcast “but for” standard by looking only at the immediate supervisor’s stated rationale, while disregarding evidence of race-conscious directives from higher-level management. That second question targets a specific methodological choice courts make at summary judgment, one that can effectively insulate corporate DEI policies from Section 1981 scrutiny.
The case arrives as federal courts continue to work out the practical reach of Comcast’s causation standard. If the Court grants certiorari, the central issue will be whether plaintiffs alleging race discrimination under corporate DEI programs can survive summary judgment by pointing to systemic, top-down evidence rather than proving discriminatory intent at each individual decision-making level. That question has direct consequences for how Section 1981 litigation proceeds in employment cases involving formal diversity initiatives.