Sheppard v. Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Section 1981 covers at-will employment agreements because “District of Columbia law . . . treat[s] at-will agreements as contracts”
• finding that individual supervisors can be sued under Section 1981 and denying their motion to dismiss
• noting that a plaintiff must make “a strong showing of intent to disrupt ongoing business relations”
• allowing at-will employee to pursue claims under Section 1981 because D.C. law treats at-will employment “as a species of contract”
• dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for interference because the complaint was silent as to the defendant’s intent
• plaintiffs failure to identify facts demonstrating future business relations or to allege any specific future business relationship required dismissal of the intentional interference claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).