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
Roberts et al v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company et al
Overview
Plaintiffs brought a class action challenge to Defendant’s program that offers grants of $25k to Black-owned small businesses to put toward purchase of a commercial vehicle.
Details
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show they were ready and able to apply for the grant. Defendants also contended that the grant program constituted a “gratuitous promise” rather than a contract, placing it outside the scope of Section 1981, which prohibits discrimination in contracts. Additionally, they argued that applying Section 1981 to this grant program would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. Finally, Defendants maintained that the program was a lawful affirmative action initiative under the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616 (1987).
The district court dismissed the lawsuit in May 2024, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate that they were ready and able to apply for the grant program absent the racial criteria.
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Status
Filed August 16, 2023 | Appealed
Relevant Law
Section 1981Topic
Targeted programsLitigation History
Significance
This case illustrates that arguments based on standing can be a powerful tool in defending some anti-DEI lawsuits.