Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D.D.C.: Gay employee, fired after five months for ‘lack of work,’ can’t advance race, sex bias claims, (Apr 7, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

Getting yelled at twice by a higher-up, especially when that higher-up was fired, was not sufficient to support the employee’s discriminatory treatment claim.

Granting summary judgment against the Title VII and DCHRA disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims of a gay Black employee, who alleged he was bullied, harassed, and ultimately fired by his consulting firm employer because of his race, sex, and sexual orientation, a federal court in the District of Columbia found no evidence supporting the contention the employer’s proffered explanation for the adverse action—a lack of work—was pretextual. The employee cited his mistreatment by the company official, but there was no evidence the official played any role in his firing. Nor was there any evidence connecting any discriminatory attitude harbored by the official to the termination decision (Wade v. Fionta, Inc., No. 23 - 1527 (SLS) (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2026)).

The employee was interviewed by several firm officials for a technical architect position. At the end of the interview, however, one of the officials told him he would be a better fit for a salesforce consultant position than for a “technical or tech lead role.” The technical architect role involved supervisory responsibilities, whereas the salesforce consultant position did not.

Berated. After he began working, the employee alleged that the same official yelled at him at a meeting, berating him for an error that was not his fault. The next day, he alleged, the official again yelled at him in a very aggressive manner over a document he created. During this incident, the official did not refer to the employee’s race, gender, or sexuality. The employee complained and the official was fired but was ultimately rehired as a consultant. He and the employee, however, never interacted after the two incidents.

Termination. Around the time of the incidents, several managers expressed concern about the employee’s work performance, lack of billable hours, and low output. Eventually, the employee was fired for “chronic lack of billable hours.” He was told the reason for his termination was “lack of work.” Around that time, the employer fired two other consultants.

The employee brought suit against the employer, asserting discriminatory treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims under Title VII and the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA). The employer moved for summary judgment on all the claims.

Discrimination claims. The employee argued that he suffered three adverse employment actions—being hired as a salesforce consultant despite interviewing for a technical architect position; being inappropriately berated by the official; and being fired. While the court found the first and third incidents were the kinds of actions that could support a discriminatory treatment claim, getting yelled at twice by a higher-up—especially when that higher-up was consequently fired—was not sufficient. Accordingly, the court found only his hiring and firing could support his discriminatory treatment claims.

Decision to hire. Although the employee contended that the decision to hire him as a salesforce consultant rather than a technical architect was discriminatory, the court disagreed. The employer asserted that it hired the employee as a salesforce consultant because the officials who interviewed him believed he “was not qualified to be a technical lead.” There was no evidence supporting the contention the employer’s proffered explanation was pretextual. One of the employer’s co-founders attested that “all” of the officials who interviewed the employee agreed he was not qualified for the technical architect position. Without any evidence suggesting that the hiring officials considered the employee’s protected characteristics in making the hiring decision, his claims based on that decision could not advance.

Decision to fire. Regarding the employee’s termination, the employer claimed he was fired because it lacked “billable work” for him. For his part, the employee argued the employer treated him worse than other employees, its explanation shifted over time, and the employer fired him shortly after the two incidents with the official.

The court concluded that the employee failed to show he was treated worse than his coworkers. He cited his treatment by the official, but there was no evidence the official played any role in his firing. Thus, there was no evidence connecting any discriminatory attitude harbored by the official to the employer’s decision to fire the employee.

The employee next pointed to the employer’s retention of another employee whose billable-hour percentages were similar to his. The metrics, however, reflected that, in fact, the employee billed a “notably lower percentage of hours” than did his coworker. Further, the employer fired two other consultants during the same period, an Asian man and a white man, both with low levels of utilization.

Shifting explanation. The employee next argued that the employer’s explanation for firing him changed over time. But no reasonable jury could agree that the employer changed its reason for firing the employee, the court said. The employer consistently stated that it fired the employee for a lack of work and the employee did not explain why a reasonable jury would consider “a lack of work” to be any different than “lacking billable hours.”

Finally, the employee argued that all of the relevant actions occurred within a short period of time. Specifically, he noted that the official yelled at him in February 2018 and he was fired a month later. But he did not identify any evidence connecting his firing to the February incidents. Thus, the court saw no reason why these events supported a jury finding that his firing was discriminatory. Thus, the court found the employee failed to show his firing was discriminatory.

Hostile work environment. To support his hostile work environment claims, the employee again relied on the two February incidents, which, he claimed, made him “fear for his safety” and feel humiliated and embarrassed. The court did not doubt that a jury could agree the employee held a subjective belief he experienced a hostile work environment. But even assuming a jury could reasonably conclude there was “some linkage” between the official’s conduct and the employee’s protected characteristics, it could not conclude that the official’s conduct cleared the “high bar for the types of behavior that create a hostile workplace.”

Although the official’s treatment of the employee was inappropriate and unprofessional, it was also the kind of ordinary workplace tribulation that does not give rise to a hostile workplace claim, the court said. Therefore, the court also granted summary judgment to the employer on the hostile work environment claims.

Retaliation claims. As to the employee’s claim the employer fired him in retaliation for reporting the official’s conduct, the employer asserted that it fired him because it “did not have enough work” for him. Although the employee may have believed the onus was on the employer to assign him more work, that opinion, the court stated, did not show retaliation played a substantial part in his termination.

The employee again argued that the one-month gap between him reporting of the official’s conduct and his termination would permit a jury to conclude his employer’s explanation was pretextual. Here, however, the record indicated that management was concerned about and trying to correct the employee’s “light” workload even before he reported the official’s conduct. In the absence of other supporting evidence, the timing of the employee’s termination, on its own, did not support an inference of retaliation.

Finally, the employee noted that after he was fired, he worked for another business that partnered with his former employer. While there, a manager told him that he had heard about the dispute and the employee explained that he had sued his former employer. That business eventually fired the employee. To the extent that the employee surmised that another business fired him because of the events with his former employer, that was unsupported by any evidence in the record, said the court.

In sum, the employee failed to identify evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to conclude the employer fired him in retaliation for complaining about the official’s conduct. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the employer on this claim as well.

The case is No. 23-1527 (SLS).

Judge: Sooknanen, S.

Attorneys: Andrew Omar Clarke (District Legal Group) for Timothy Wade. Merrell Beth Renaud (Miles & Stockbridge) for Fionta, Inc.

Companies: Fionta, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation DistrictofColumbiaNews