the club. Thus, the only contract at issue in that case was the potential purchase of soft drinks. Furthermore, the Watsons had specifically claimed that they were prohibited from purchasing soft drinks. See also Wyatt v. Security Inn Food & Beverage, 819 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1987) (addressing only Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a and other civil rights laws, not the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, to uphold a jury verdict on a claim that African American bar patrons were ejected from a bar based on a facially neutral "drinks o s.1990). But see Bobbitt by Bobbitt v. Rage Inc., 19 F.Supp.2d 512, 517-18 (W.D.N.C. 1998); Harrison v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., No. C-96-0343, 1997 WL 227963, *4 (N.D.Cal. Apr.24, 1997); Robertson v. Burger King, 848 F.Supp. 78, 80-81 (E.D.La. 1994) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Two potential pieces of direct evidence
holding that the white defendants association with a black defendant was not sufficient to give them standing to join in the black defendants batson challenge holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc  1981 holding that delays in service at a restaurant such as when black patrons are served or attended to only after white patrons do not amount to an actionable 42 usc  1981 violation holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons holding that 42 usc  1981 requires a showing of purposeful discrimination