[her] customer service duties to Glen Stickler” and did not allow her to attend certain training sessions that Bello and Stickler were allowed to attend. (Id. ¶ 125.) Plaintiffs allegation that Porter “did not appear to be threatened by ... male employees” (Walfoort Deck, Ex. 3 ¶20), could further support her claim that defendants’ proffered explanation for her termination is mere pretext. Although Porter and Green are both African-American, plaintiffs claim of racial discrimination against them does not fail as a matter of law. Intra-racial discrimination is actionable under § 1981. Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609-10, 612-13, 107 S.Ct. 2022, 95 L.Ed.2d 582 (1987); see also Hansborough v. City of Elkhart Parks & Recreation Dept., 802 F.Supp. 199, 206 (N.D.Ind.1992)(<HOLDING>); Franceschi v. Hyatt Corp., 782 F.Supp. 712,
holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case holding white female employee lacks standing under title vii to allege injury on behalf of black applicants to employment agency who were discriminated against because of race holding in a title vii case but relying on  1981 cases that the issue is not the plaintiffs physical characteristics but whether he was discriminated against by other africanamericans because he was born black holding that the plaintiff will be entitled to recovery if he convinces the trier of fact that puerto ricans discriminated against him because he was born  puerto rican holding that the plaintiff had stated a claim under 42 usc  1981 when he alleged that he was prohibited from using the restroom at a burger king after ordering and eating a meal because he was black