When Politics, Not Prejudice, Drives Cancellation: A Federal Court’s Take on Section 1981

A federal court in Northern California recently drew a sharp line between political controversy and unlawful discrimination. The case involved a Jewish performer whose Hanukkah concert was canceled after backlash to a social media post supporting Israel following the October 7 Hamas attack. The performer claimed discrimination. The court said: not quite.

The Backstory: A Concert Canceled After Online Outcry

The devotional rock music performer had a longstanding relationship with a retreat center, and in December 2024, the venue agreed to host a Hanukkah concert. However, after the performer posted support for Israel following the October 7 Hamas attack, online criticism erupted with accusations of promoting “genocide music” and supporting violence against Palestinians. Within days, the venue canceled the concert, citing:

• Severe negative feedback
• A desire to avoid politics and divisiveness
• Safety concerns

The Legal Claim: Discrimination Under Section 1981

The performer sued under Section 1981, a federal law that prohibits race discrimination in contracts. They argued the cancellation was rooted in anti-Jewish bias, which caused emotional distress, financial loss, and reputational harm.

But the court disagreed.

The Court’s Reasoning: Politics ≠ Race

Even though the court assumed all allegations were true, it found no plausible claim of race discrimination:

• The venue had previously hosted the performer without issue.
• The contract was signed before the controversy erupted.
• The cancellation followed public backlash, not any stated bias.
• The venue’s stated reasons were political and safety-related, not racial or religious.

The court emphasized that political controversy is different from racial discrimination. Even if the performer viewed Zionism as part of Jewish identity, the venue’s actions didn’t show that identity was the reason for cancellation. Because Section 1981 requires race to be the “but-for” cause of the decision, the claim failed.

Read the decision – No. 25-cv-02852-CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025)

Why This Matters for Employers

Section 1981 applies broadly to employment and contracting. Here’s what employers should take away:

• Political views aren’t protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.
• Intent is key: decisions must be based on legitimate business reasons, not race.
• Documentation protects: clear records of why actions were taken help defend against bias claims.
• Consistency counts: treating similar situations alike builds trust and legal defensibility.

The Takeaway

Being “canceled” for political views may feel unfair—but it’s not unlawful unless race or religion is the driving factor. This case underscores the importance of distinguishing between controversy and discrimination.

Stay Ahead of the Legal Curve

If you’re an employer, HR professional, or legal advisor navigating the intersection of politics, identity, and workplace decisions, now’s the time to review your policies and practices. Contact us today to schedule a consultation or to learn more.

FAQs

Q. What is Section 1981?
A. Section 1981 of the U.S. Code prohibits race-based discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. It applies to employment, business deals, and other contractual relationships.

Q. Does Section 1981 protect religious discrimination?
A. No. Section 1981 specifically addresses race, not religion. Claims based on religious bias typically fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, not Section 1981.

Q. Can political views be protected under federal anti-discrimination laws?
A. Generally, no. Political beliefs are not protected under federal anti-discrimination laws like Section 1981 or Title VII. However, some state laws or company policies may offer protections.

Q. Why did the court reject the performer’s claim?
A. The court found that the concert cancellation was driven by political backlash and safety concerns, not racial or religious bias. Since Section 1981 requires race to be the “but-for” cause of the decision, the claim didn’t meet the legal threshold.

Q. What should employers learn from this case?
A. Employers should:

• Document decisions clearly and consistently.
• Ensure actions are based on legitimate business reasons.
• Understand that political controversy ≠ unlawful discrimination.
• Treat similar situations alike to avoid claims of bias.

Q. Can being “canceled” ever be a legal claim?
A. Only if the cancellation is based on a protected characteristic like race, religion, sex, or national origin. Mere political disagreement or public backlash does not automatically create a legal claim.