Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D.N.Y.: Political memes, Trump comments not enough to support Jewish assistant principal’s Title VII claims, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

However, the employee, who was fired after complaining about the memes, advanced retaliation and ADA failure-to-accommodate claims.

Despite her coworkers’ statements and memes in a group text chat—including a photo referring to former President Joseph Biden as “Gropey” and of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “Dopey,” as well as a cartoon of Representative Nancy Pelosi standing next to Hitler—a Jewish interim assistant principal in a New York public school, who was fired after complaining to the deputy superintendent about the comments, was unable to advance her Title VII religious- and sex-based hostile work environment claims. The federal court in New York, however, denied summary judgment against her ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, finding ample evidence to suggest the severe mental health issues she developed following her termination substantially limited her major life activities of working and socializing. Her Title VII retaliation claim also survived her employer’s motion (Isasi v. Department of Education of the City of New York, No. 21-cv-03298 (NCM) (JAM) (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026)).

Group text chat. The long-tenured New York City Department of Education employee was hired as an interim assistant principal at a public high school in 2018. A few weeks later, another assistant principal started a group text chat with the vice principals and principal so they could easily communicate with each other. Many of the participants, however, regularly sent political memes reflecting their strong support for President Trump and dislike for Democrats and liberals.

For example, one member sent a photo depicting Biden putting his hands on a woman’s chest over her blouse and referred to Biden as “Gropey” and Ocasio-Cortez, who was also pictured, as “Dopey.” He also sent a meme of Ocasio-Cortez as mostly naked and removing the rest of her clothes and another meme of her captioned “Can someone please shut this bishop” (an apparent word play for “shut this bitch up”).

Members also shared a cartoon of Pelosi standing next to Hitler, who was wearing a swastika. In the cartoon, Pelosi stated “Sure, he’s made some questionable comments about Jews, but I don’t think it was intentional.” Another image showed Representative Ilhan Omar laughing and was captioned “I insult Jews and play dumb.” Other memes, according to the employee, were highly racist against both Black and Hispanic people.

“We all love Donald Trump.” Her colleagues also made frequent comments about the employee’s perceived distaste for Donald Trump, including a statement by another assistant principal that the principal “tells me you are not 100% behind Trump—this could be a true problem,” and “We all love Donald Trump… right, Janet?” The messages continued even though the employee asked her coworkers to stop.

Deputy superintendent. In April 2019, the employee emailed the deputy superintendent asking to speak to her about “something confidential.” The next day, the principal purportedly berated the employee, telling her there was “something wrong with her.” When the employee met with the deputy superintendent, she learned she had told the principal about their scheduled meeting. At the meeting, the employee shared the offensive messages with the deputy superintendent, who allegedly told her to file a complaint.

Shortly after the meeting, the principal purportedly asked staff members to keep a written record of complaints about the employee. Less than a week later, the principal submitted a report to the DOE’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) alleging multiple instances of verbal abuse by the employee. Although the OSI found the allegations were unfounded, the principal nonetheless issued her a verbal warning.

Removed from position. Less than three weeks after the employee’s meeting with the deputy superintendent, the principal met with the employee to discuss complaints from staff, almost all of which were dated after the deputy superintendent’s meeting. In May, the principal gave the employee an overall unsatisfactory rating and recommended the discontinuation of her service. A week later, the superintendent affirmed that recommendation. The employee remained at a reassignment center for with no work for approximately six months where she developed severe mental health issues including Major Depressive Disorder and Panic Disorder.

ADA claim. Addressing the employee’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, the court rejected the department’s assertion she failed to show she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Specifically, the court found ample evidence suggesting her conditions limited her major life activities of working and socializing including a letter from her psychiatrist stating that she experiences “levels of anxiety that make it extremely difficult for her to work in person in a shared space.”

In addition, the employee testified that, as a result of her mental disorders, she could not manage her family, perform everyday life skills, or attend to activities of daily living. She also testified that she never gets through a day at work “without medication and anxiety and panic pills” and that even though her relationship with her new boss was professional, every time he walked near her, she started having a panic attack.

This evidence, said the court, suggested extensive and long-lasting impairments to work, socializing, and functioning within her household and daily life and whether, as the department argued, these difficulties were initially caused by the embarrassment of losing her job, her “account of them could clearly support a finding that at least one, if not multiple, of plaintiff’s major life activities has been impaired by her conditions.” Thus, said the court, a jury could find she was a person with a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

Retaliation. At issue in the employee’s Title VII retaliation claim was whether the department’s stated reason for terminating her—poor performance—was pretextual. Here, the court observed, the employee presented evidence that after the principal learned about her scheduled meeting with the superintendent, the principal berated her without explanation and then made a referral to OSI that was later determined to be unfounded. Despite that, the principal issued her a verbal warning. Further, the employee asserted, the principal asked staff members to write down complaints about her and at a subsequent meeting, the principal presented her with those complaints.

The employee also presented evidence that prior to her complaint to the superintendent, the principal had repeatedly praised her performance. Based on this evidence, said the court, a reasonable jury could find the department’s stated reasons for her termination were pretextual.

But-for cause. While the department argued that even if the principal had animus against the employee, it was the superintendent who made the ultimate decision to discontinue her role, the court noted evidence by which a jury could find the principal’s retaliatory animus was a but-for cause of the adverse action. Specifically, there was evidence the superintendent chose to uncritically credit the information provided by the principal, including affirming the principal’s termination just a week after receiving the employee’s “voluminous” letter, with hundreds of pages of supporting materials, refuting the issues the principal had raised. Indeed, the superintendent admitted that she had very limited memory of reviewing the employee’s file. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment against this claim.

Hostile work environment—religious. Turning to the employee’s religion-based hostile work environment claim, the court found she failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the Hitler meme was sufficiently “extraordinarily severe.” At face value, said the court, the meme was not physically threatening or humiliating towards Jewish people but rather mocked the sender’s perception of Pelosi’s lack of support for them. Likewise, the other meme that mentioned Judaism was similarly critical of Omar’s perceived insults toward Jewish people. Moreover, said the court, the memes were sent to a group that included the principal, who was also Jewish.

While the court made it clear that it was “not holding here that “one swastika is not enough” or that a coworker or supervisor’s display of deeply offensive, historically freighted imagery in a workplace cannot sustain a Title VII claim,” it explained that, in considering the totality of circumstances, it found the employee failed to establish an adequate severe circumstance.

Sex-based claim. Regarding her gender-based hostile work environment claim, while she pointed to the alleged sexist memes in support, the court found the single use of the term “bitch” in the Ocasio-Cortez meme, which was directed at someone other than the employee, did not alter the conditions of her employment. As to the images highlighting women’s breasts, none of the images depicted or purported to depict the employee and none of them were pornographic or sexual.

The closest to the line, the court observed, was the meme of Biden groping a fully clothed woman’s chest, “and, as with the Hitler meme discussed above, that is clearly a meme criticizing Biden for his perceived “[g]ropey”-ness—not celebrating or supporting it.” Again, the court pointed out that the sender of the meme sent it to a group of people that included multiple women, including the principal, and at least one of them reacted positively to it. Based on all of this, the court granted summary judgment against the employee’s hostile work environment claim.

The case is No. 21-cv-03298 (NCM) (JAM).

Judge: Merle, N.

Attorneys: Debra L. Raskin (Vladeck, Raskin & Clark) for Janet R. Isasi. Rachel Michelle DiBenedetto (Epstein Becker & Green) for The Department of Education of the City of New York, The City of New York Board of Education, and Meisha Porter.

Companies: The Department of Education of the City of New York; The City of New York Board of Education

MainStory: TopStory Discrimination SexDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination NewYorkNews GCNNews