Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D.D.C.: White Orthodox Jewish school counselor's race, gender bias claims survive challenge, (Jul 24, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

Evidence that similarly situated Black male employees allegedly engaged in comparable or more serious misconduct without losing their jobs created triable issues on race and gender discrimination claims.

A federal district court in the District of Columbia has allowed a former charter school counselor to proceed to trial on claims of race and gender discrimination after concluding that a reasonable jury could find two Black male employees received more favorable treatment for comparable workplace misconduct. However, the court dismissed her claims of religious discrimination and retaliation, finding the school's decision not to renew her contract stemmed from communication and performance concerns rather than her observance of Passover or protected whistleblowing activity (Erickson v. Center City Public Charter Schools, No. 1:25-cv-00053 (TNM) (D.D.C. July 23, 2026)).

Termination. The plaintiff, a white Orthodox Jewish woman, worked as a school counselor at Center City Public Charter Schools for nearly two academic years. The school declined to renew her contract for the 2024-25 school year after citing a series of professionalism and performance concerns, including failures to conduct parent meetings, violations of student mental-health and pickup protocols, poor communication with colleagues, and missing an awards-selection meeting during her approved Passover leave. The counselor contended that those reasons were pretextual and that she was subjected to discrimination based on her race, gender, and religion. She also alleged retaliation under the District of Columbia Contractor and Instrumentality Whistleblower Protection Act.

Religious discrimination. The court granted summary judgment against the religious discrimination claims under Title VII and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the court proceeded directly to whether the counselor had produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the school's stated reasons were a pretext for religious discrimination. It concluded she had not.

The counselor had requested and received approval to take leave for Passover, which lasted from April 22 through April 30, 2024. Before the holiday, however, she participated in scheduling a counselors' meeting for April 30 but never informed colleagues or supervisors that the meeting conflicted with her religious observance. Because she did not attend and no one from her campus knew coverage was needed, school administrators had to make alternative arrangements so their students could still be considered for awards. After she returned from leave, the school informed her that her contract would not be renewed.

The court found the undisputed evidence showed the school consistently attributed its decision to the counselor's failure to communicate the scheduling conflict, not to her religious observance. In emails and a follow-up meeting, the principal repeatedly emphasized that the school had no objection to her taking Passover leave but expected her to notify others that she would miss the meeting so another employee could attend. The counselor herself acknowledged during the follow-up meeting that she understood "there was no discrimination intended" and that her concern centered on the timing of the decision.

The court also rejected arguments that temporal proximity between her return from Passover and the nonrenewal decision established a pretext. The court explained that temporal proximity alone is insufficient to demonstrate pretext. Likewise, the fact that school officials ultimately managed to submit student award nominations despite her absence did not undermine their honest belief that her communication failures violated workplace expectations.

Race and gender discrimination. The race and gender discrimination claims, however, survived summary judgment. Although the school identified numerous legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for declining to renew the counselor's contract, including violations of school protocols, inadequate communication with parents and staff, and repeated professionalism concerns, the court found sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude those reasons masked disparate treatment.

The counselor identified two Black male employees whom she claimed were treated more favorably despite engaging in comparable or more serious misconduct: the school's vice principal and a fifth-grade math teacher. According to the record, the vice principal posted an inappropriate shirtless TikTok video but was merely required to remove it, while the math teacher allegedly screamed at students, neglected his classroom, missed meetings, and remained employed without discipline. Both employees reported to the same principal, who evaluated the counselor.

The court rejected the school's argument that employees with different job titles and responsibilities could never serve as comparators. Different positions, it explained, do not automatically defeat comparator evidence where the employees are supervised by the same decisionmaker and a jury could find their misconduct similarly serious.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the counselor, the court concluded a reasonable jury could determine that the proposed comparators engaged in misconduct of comparable seriousness yet received substantially more lenient treatment. Because comparator evidence remains one of the principal methods of demonstrating pretext, genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on the race and gender discrimination claims.

The court also rejected the school's contention that the counselor had effectively conceded those claims during her deposition. Read in context, her testimony merely acknowledged that the comparator employees themselves had not personally discriminated against her. Her theory, the court explained, was that the principal treated those employees more favorably than she treated the counselor because of race and gender. That distinction prevented summary judgment.

Retaliation. The retaliation claim under the District of Columbia Contractor and Instrumentality Whistleblower Protection Act did not survive. The counselor argued that she engaged in protected whistleblowing by reporting students with suicidal ideation and that school officials retaliated by criticizing her handling of those situations and declining to renew her contract. The court concluded, however, that the statute protects disclosures concerning governmental wrongdoing, not reports about individual students' mental-health conditions.

The court explained that protected disclosures must reasonably expose government misconduct or other statutory violations. Reporting concerns about students, even if school administrators later disagreed with the counselor's assessment, did not constitute whistleblowing under the Act because the disclosures did not identify wrongdoing by the school itself. Accordingly, the retaliation claim failed as a matter of law.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-00053 (TNM).

Judge: McFadden, T.

Attorneys: Anita Mazumdar Chambers (Employment Law Group) for Batya Erickson. Andrew Frank Stewart (Carr Maloney) for Center City Public Charter Schools.

Companies: Center City Public Charter Schools

Cases: RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Whistleblowers Discrimination Retaliation DistrictofColumbiaNews