that Patterson does not specifically prohibit retaliation claims under § 1981, Congress still intended to make retaliation claims actionable under § 1981. The House Committee on Education and Labor (“the Committee”), the committee to whom the bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was assigned, stated that Section 210 would overrule Patterson by adding at the conclusion of section 1981 a new subsection (b).... The Committee intends this provision to bar all race discrimination in contractual relations. The list set forth in subsection (b) is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. In the context of employment discrimination, for example, this would include, but not be limited to, claims of harassment, discharge, demotion, promotion, transfer, retali 47 (N.D.Ill.1994) (<HOLDING>); Clark v. City of Macon, Ga., 860 F.Supp.
holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981 holding that general employment practices are relevant to eeoc investigation of individual disparate treatment claim holding that  1981 does not contain a cause of action against arms of the state holding that plaintiffs claim of reduction in work hours in retaliation for her filing of eeoc charge states a cause of action under  1981 holding that plaintiff states a cause of action under  1981 by alleging that defendant harassed and retaliated against him for filing eeoc claim and otherwise attempting to receive redress for disparate treatment