nonetheless protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 because at the time of the statute’s adoption they “were among the peoples then considered to be distinct races”). To state a retaliation claim under § 1981 based on events occurring in the workplace, an employee must show that she suffered a materially adverse action because she engaged in protected activity. See Davis v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wis., L.P., 651 F.3d 664, 674 (7th Cir. 2011); Silverman v. Board of Education, 637 F.3d 729, 740-42 (7th Cir. 2011). “Individual employees can be held liable under Section 1981 if they ‘participated’ in the retaliatory conduct.” Carter, 778 F.3d at 657, quoting Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 896-97 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Sklyarsky v. Means-Knaus Partners, L.P., 777 F.3d 892, 896 (7th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Muhammad v. Oliver, 547 F.3d 874, 878 (7th
holding that insurer could not tortiously interfere with its own insurance plan recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action holding individual employees may be liable under title vii holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea recognizing that thirdparties may be liable under the statute for tortiously interfering with an employees relationship with her employer for racial reasons