It's quite likely that the defense attorneys asked the same question -- by means of a motion to dismiss or strike that part of the complaint -- and the Court determined that it was enough to state a claim. Without having read her amended complaint, I would surmise that her claim for racial discrimination is based on some combination of (1) ancestry, (2) perceived -- rather than actual -- ancestry, and (3) family relationships. Or perhaps the defense attorneys did their research and found similar cases where such claims had been allowed. I can see that if a white woman married a black man, some people would discriminate against her, and, depending on the circumstances, they might do the same thing if it was her sibling, rather than she, who married and had children with a black person. There was a time in American history when Americans whose family was originally from Sicily and other places like Lebanon, Portugal, and even Ireland weren't considered "white," and I have also read of instances of Jewish and Italian-American people who were mistaken for light-skinned blacks. So her actual or perceived ancestry is relevant. Ms. Jackson's claim to be the victim of racial discrimination does sound weak. She is, however, entitled to her day in court, and she might be able to prevail on that claim.