Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—2d Cir.: Fired laundromat employee, told she ‘looked like Aunt Jemima,’ revives lawsuit, (Apr 10, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

A manager said she “shouldn’t have this job” if she needed an accommodation.

A former laundromat employee of Jamaican origin, told by a supervisor that she was “too ‘hood’ and ‘ghetto’ to work” for Clean Rite, in the Bronx, and fired after removing $15 from the cash register for her employer-reimbursed cab fare, has revived her suit alleging discriminatory and retaliatory termination, hostile work environment, refusal to accommodate a disability, and unpaid wages, the Second Circuit found. She testified at her deposition, and asserted in a sworn declaration, that Clean Rite employees were permitted to take cash from the register to pay their taxi fare so long as they left a receipt, which she did, and she alleged that other employees “engaged in this practice openly as well with no discipline.” She also presented sufficient evidence that the employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for her injured thumb and never paid her for extra shifts she worked (Knox v. CRC Management Co., No. 23-121 (2d Cir. Apr. 9, 2025)).

Customer service attendant. From December 2018 until her termination in April 2019, the plaintiff, a Black woman of Jamaican descent, worked as a customer service attendant at three Clean Rite laundromats in the Bronx. Her job included tending to customers, washing and folding laundry, and keeping the equipment clean.

Supervisor’s comments. In February 2019, she began having problems with her supervisor at one location. The supervisor would make derogatory comments to her on a daily basis, telling the employee that she was “too ‘hood’ and ‘ghetto’ to work” for Clean Rite and that “the Yankee in [her] makes [her] timid.”

Reported to district lead. She reported these comments to her district lead, who took no action. The following month, though, he was replaced by a new manager who began routinely making derogatory comments of his own.

“Aunt Jemima” and “talking Jamaican.” In one instance, the new manager told the employee that she “looked like Aunt Jemima.” In another, he “criticized [her] for ‘talking Jamaican’ when [she] got ‘upset.’”

Broken thumb. In early March, the employee visited her doctor regarding a broken thumb she had sustained in a car accident about a month earlier. Since the accident, the district lead had allowed her to perform lighter duties, but she continued to experience pain. Her doctor gave her a new hand brace and instructed her not to lift more than 25 pounds.

“[S]houldn’t have this job.” She told the supervisor about her doctor’s instruction and asked that she not be required to lift more than 25 pounds during her shifts. The supervisor, in turn, said she “shouldn’t have this job” if she needed an accommodation, and continued to require the employee to do work that involved lifting more than 25 pounds.

The employee told her regional leader about the supervisor’s derogatory comments and her refusal to accommodate her thumb injury. With respect to her request for an accommodation, he told her, “[W]e might need to have a conversation if you can’t do your job.” She also met with the new manager to discuss her supervisor’s derogatory comments.

Pay for extra shifts. Around that same time, she complained to Clean Rite that she had not been paid for extra shifts she worked at two other Clean Rite locations. She filed a formal complaint with the new manager, who never got back to her.

Cab fare and discharge. Finally, on April 14, after taking a taxi to work, she reimbursed herself by taking $15 from the cash register and putting her taxi receipt in its place. She testified that Clean Rite would pay employees’ taxi fare, and the new manager had given her permission to reimburse herself from the register as long as she left a receipt.

But the following day, her new supervisor confronted her and asked her to return the money. She declined, explaining that she was owed taxi fare and had not acted contrary to company policy. The new supervisor informed the new manager, who fired the employee three days later, citing her removal of cash from the register and her refusal to return it.

Lawsuit. The former employee sued Clean Rite, the first supervisor, and the new manager, alleging discriminatory and retaliatory termination, a hostile work environment, refusal to accommodate a disability, and unpaid wages. She also alleged that the first supervisor and new manager aided and abetted Clean Rite’s discrimination and retaliation.

Decision below and appeal. Clean Rite moved for summary judgment, the former employee moved to strike the defendants’ answer with respect to the first supervisor and new manager, who had since failed to appear, and requested that default judgment be entered against them. The district court granted summary judgment for Clean Rite, dismissed the claims against the two individual defendants sua sponte, and denied the former employee’s motion as moot.

She timely appealed.

Discriminatory termination. Turning first to her discriminatory termination claims, the Second Circuit found that a jury could reasonably infer that the former employee’s race or national origin played at least some part, even if not the only part, in her firing. First, she adduced evidence that the new manager had made discriminatory comments to her not long before firing her, telling her that she “looked like Aunt Jemima” and “criticiz[ing] [her] for ‘talking Jamaican’ when [she] got ‘upset.’” Second, neither he nor his predecessor had taken any action in response to the employee’s complaint about racial harassment by the first supervisor. This was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge.

Clean Rite asserted that it fired her for a legitimate reason: she took $15 from its cash register and refused to give it back. But the former employee testified at her deposition, and asserted in a sworn declaration, that Clean Rite employees were permitted to take cash from the register to pay their taxi fare so long as they left a receipt, which she did. She also said that other employees “engaged in this practice openly as well with no discipline.” If Clean Rite previously gave its employees permission to take cash from the register for their cab rides, the court reasoned, then it had no reason to demand that the employee return the money. “Neither taking the money nor refusing to return it would be a legitimate reason for [her] termination.”

Presented with this evidence of pretext alongside the evidence making up her prima facie case, including racial comments made by the new manager who fired her, a reasonable jury, the appeals court found, could determine that the employee was terminated because of her race or national origin.

Retaliatory termination. Turning to her retaliatory termination claim, the court concluded that the former employee adduced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment. She testified that she complained to her managers—including the regional leader, who, according to Clean Rite, directed her termination—about racial harassment and the first supervisor’s refusal to accommodate her injured thumb. The parties also did not dispute that Clean Rite fired her. She stated in her declaration that she last complained to management about discrimination around mid-March 2019, and the parties agree that Clean Rite fired her on April 18, 2019. Interpreting the entire record in the light most favorable to her, the appeals court found that a rational jury could infer a causal connection from the roughly one-month period between her protected activity and her firing. And, as with her discrimination claims, there was sufficient record evidence that Clean Rite’s proffered reason for the firing—that she took cash from the register and refused to return it—was mere pretext. Combined with the temporal proximity between her complaints and her firing, the Second Circuit said, this evidence would allow a rational jury to conclude that Clean Rite would not have fired her but for her protected activity.

Hostile work environment. The former employee’s hostile work environment claims were also sufficient to survive summary judgment, according to the court. In her sworn declaration, she described being subjected to daily harassment from her first supervisor. She also attested that the new manager would “routinely mak[e] derogatory comments concerning [her] race and nationality.” Drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the appeals court found, a rational jury could conclude that daily and routine comments such as the alleged references to “Aunt Jemima” and “talking Jamaican” were “sufficiently continuous and concerted,” according to the court, to have worsened the conditions of her employment.

Disability discrimination. The former employee’s disability discrimination claims also survived. The record contained evidence: (1) that she broke her finger, which prevented her from lifting heavier loads; (2) that she notified Clean Rite management of this injury and her doctor’s instruction not to lift more than 25 pounds; (3) that she was able to perform her job while avoiding heavier lifting; and (4) that her supervisor denied her request not to lift more than 25 pounds. At a minimum, concluded the Second Circuit, the record reflects a genuine factual dispute as to each element of these claims.

Wage violations. The former employee also adduced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on her minimum wage and overtime claims. She stated in her sworn declaration that she worked 32 hours per week at Clean Rite’s White Plains Road location, that she worked about 8 hours per week—and sometimes more—at two other Clean Rite locations, and that she never received compensation for her work at these latter two locations. She also testified at her deposition that the employee time sheets appeared to have been altered and that compensation for her hours seemed to have been allocated to her first supervisor.

Claims against individual defendants. Finally, the former employee sought to reinstate her claims against the first supervisor and the new manager, who failed to appear since answering the complaint. With the appeals court’s reinstatement of the claims against Clean Rite, it found that the claims against these individual defendants were no longer, as the district court had found, moot. Accordingly, the Second Circuit found that “the most appropriate course is to vacate the dismissal of the claims against them and allow the district court on remand to reconsider [the former employee’s] motion.”

The case is No. 23-121.

Judge: Pérez, M.

Attorneys: Stephen Bergstein (Bergstein & Ullrich) for Natasha Knox. Jeremi L. Chylinski (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for CRC Management Co., LLC.

Companies: CRC Management Co., LLC

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination NationalOrigin Discharge Retaliation WageHour MinimumWage Overtime ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews GCNNews