The most consequential Christian Brothers Automotive lawsuit is Domanic v. Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation, a federal discrimination case a Texas judge decided in the company’s favor in September 2025, upholding the franchisor’s requirement that all franchisees be practicing Christians. The company has also been through a short-lived franchise enforcement suit against a former operator and a pre-litigation consumer settlement over a shop accident.
The Domanic Discrimination Case
Evan Domanic sued Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 2022, alleging the company terminated his franchise application after learning he is Jewish. His claim ran under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981, the federal civil rights statute that bars racial discrimination in private contracts.1CaseMine. Domanic v. Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation
Christian Brothers answered that it ended the application because Domanic was not a practicing Christian, not because of his Jewish ethnicity. The company described itself as a “Christian faith-based franchisor” with a non-negotiable requirement that franchisees share its faith, and said it had awarded franchises to people of Jewish ancestry who identified as Christian while never granting one to a non-Christian in its roughly forty years of operation.1CaseMine. Domanic v. Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation
How the Court Ruled
Judge Lynn N. Hughes denied the company’s motions to dismiss on July 15, 2022, letting the case move forward.2PACER Monitor. Domanic v. Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation, Opinion and Order Denying Dismissal The case was later reassigned to Judge Drew B. Tipton, who granted summary judgment to Christian Brothers on September 26, 2025.
Judge Tipton applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used in civil rights discrimination cases. The court accepted that Domanic had made an initial showing: he disclosed his religion, was rejected soon after, and the timing raised a question. The case turned on the next step, whether Domanic could show the religious reason was a cover for racial or ethnic bias. The judge held that he could not.1CaseMine. Domanic v. Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation
Central to the reasoning was the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, which held that Jewish people can bring racial discrimination claims under federal civil rights statutes because Congress in 1866 treated Jews as a distinct race for those laws.3Justia. Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 Judge Tipton used that same precedent to split the categories: Jewish ethnicity is protected under Section 1981, Jewish religion is not. Because Christian Brothers had previously granted franchises to applicants of Jewish ancestry who were Christian, the court found no reasonable jury could conclude race, rather than religion, drove the rejection. A disputed remark by a non-decisionmaker was not enough to create a genuine factual dispute.
What the Ruling Does Not Do
Judge Tipton wrote that the decision is not “carte blanche for religion-based exclusion.” A different record, such as evidence of selective enforcement of the religious requirement or mixed motives, could produce a different outcome. The ruling is unpublished and comes from one federal district court, so it does not bind other courts.
Why Section 1981 Did Not Reach the Claim
Section 1981 covers race but not religion. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does cover religion, but it governs employment relationships and does not straightforwardly reach the franchisor-franchisee relationship. The practical result, as the Domanic ruling shows, is that a faith-based franchisor can exclude applicants on religious grounds so long as the exclusion is genuinely about faith and not a proxy for racial or ethnic bias.
Christian Brothers has been open about its criteria. Its franchise materials say it partners with people “who want to live their faith in the workplace” and describe the business as applying “strong biblical principles to the auto repair industry,” with shops closed Saturdays and Sundays.4Christian Brothers Franchise. The Christian in Christian Brothers Automotive Franchise Means a Lot5Christian Brothers Franchise. Christian Brothers Automotive Franchise
Christian Brothers v. Annie’s Auto
In January 2022, Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation sued Annie’s Auto, LLC, Seek 1st, LLC, Angela Kaschube, and Kevin Kaschube in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The verified complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief in what the court classified as a franchise and breach-of-contract dispute. Filings included a default letter and a cease-and-desist letter, and the franchise agreement was filed under seal.6Justia Dockets. Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation v. Annie’s Auto, LLC et al
The court entered a consent temporary restraining order on January 27, 2022. The next day, Christian Brothers filed a voluntary notice of dismissal, and the case was dismissed without prejudice on January 31, 2022.7UniCourt. Christian Brothers Automotive Corporation v. Annie’s Auto, LLC et al The quick sequence suggests a private resolution, though the terms were not made public.
Armstrong Consumer Settlement
In a 2019 consumer dispute, a customer identified as Armstrong pursued a claim against a Christian Brothers Automotive location after a hydraulic lift failed and dropped the customer’s low-mileage car six feet, totaling it. The matter was resolved before any lawsuit was filed. The pre-litigation settlement paid $7,000, which covered the remaining loan balance on the totaled vehicle and provided a down payment on a replacement car.8Moss Law Houston. Auto Shop Settles With Owner Over Totaled Vehicle
About the Company
Christian Brothers Automotive was founded in 1982 in Mission Bend, Texas, and began franchising in 1996.9Christian Brothers Automotive. About Us It is headquartered in Houston and operates more than 330 franchise locations across 30 states as of early 2026.10PR Newswire. Christian Brothers Automotive Accelerates Franchise Development With New Markets Identified for Growth