was not made, until after all of the candidates had been interviewed. (See Ford Deck, Ex. 13 at 65-66.) 10 . Bacchus testified that she was unaware that an offer had been extended to Dougherty. (See Walfoort Deck, Ex. 16 at 75-76.) 11 . The individual defendants contend, however, that they are not subject to suit as individuals under § 1981. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 10.) Unlike under Title VII, individual defendants can be sued for intentional race discrimination under § 1981 if they are personally involved in the discrimination or if plaintiff can "demonstrate some affirmative link to causally connect” the individual defendant with the discriminatory act. Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 229 (2d Cir.2004); see also Flores v. Denver, 30 Fed.Appx. 816, 819 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc.,
holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary holding that for the government to be sued on a contract pursuant to the tucker act there must be privity of contract between the plaintiff and the united states holding that employer may be held liable under  1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981