v. Bd. of Appeals, 811 F.2d 36, 37 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021, 107 S.Ct. 3266, 97 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987). At issue is whether Plaintiffs Amended Complaint adequately alleges the elements of violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000d. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). In order to establish a § 1981 violation, a party must establish three elements: (1) purposeful discrimination; (2) that is based on race; (3) in the making or enforcing of a contract. See Dartmouth Review, 889 F.2d at 17. See also General Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 3151, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000d mandates that “[n]o
holding that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination holding that a violation of  1981 requires purposeful race discrimination holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc  1981 holding that 42 usc  1981 requires a showing of purposeful discrimination holding that texas twoyear statute of limitations applied to suit alleging racial discrimination under 42 usc  1981