The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Bolduc v. Amazon.com Inc.
Overview
Plaintiff challenged Defendant’s program under which eligible Black, Hispanic, and Native American “delivery service partners” (DSPs) receive a stipend of $10,000 to assist with startup costs, claiming that the program violates section 1981.
Details
Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for lack of standing. Plaintiff had not even applied to the DSP program, so her purported injuries were hypothetical and conjectural.
Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Status
Filed July 20, 2022 | Appealed
Relevant Law
Section 1981Topic
Targeted programsLitigation History
Significance
This decision illustrates the importance of standing arguments to defend section 1981 challenges.