relies on in contending that retaliation claims for fifing EEOC charges are not actionable under § 1981. In addition to § 1981(b)’s plain language, legislative purpose, and legislative history, case law reinforces the interpretation that retaliation claims for filing EEOC charges are actionable under § 1981. Recently, the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed Cabiness v. YKK (USA), Inc., 859 F.Supp. 582 (M.D.Ga.1994), aff'd mem., 98 F.3d 1354, No. 95-9012 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 1996), which stated that “Section 1981 protections now apply to the entire employment context and not simply terminations.” Id. at 588 (emphasis added). More specifically, the district court implied that claims of retaliation, hostile work environment, and discriminatory terms and . 1378, 1381-82 (S.D.Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>); Humphrey v. Council of Jewish Fed’ns, 901
recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding that plaintiff is entitled to assert claim of retaliatory transfer under  1981 holding that adverse employment effects include but are not limited to such discrete actions as discharge demotion or reduction in pay recognizing cause of action for retaliatory demotion for asserting workers compensation rights holding that retaliatory discharge demotion or other adverse employment claims state a cause of action under  1981