Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—2d Cir.: NYC DOE employee gets second shot on claim implicit bias trainings fostered hostile work environment, (Sep 26, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“We do not suggest that the conduct of implicit bias trainings is per se racist.”

Vacating summary judgment against a Caucasian educator’s Section 1983 claim the New York City DOE had a racially discriminatory municipal policy that created a hostile work environment, the Second Circuit cited evidence that racist comments were expressed during implicit bias trainings— including that there was “white toxicity in the air,” that “white colleagues must take a step back,” and that the employee was “racist”—and the DOE knew about the alleged harassment but did nothing to stop it. The court, however, affirmed summary judgment against the employee’s claims based on her demotion and alleged constructive discharge (Chislett v. New York City Department of Education, No. 24-972-cv (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2025)).

The employee served as the Executive Director of the “AP for All” program, the mayor’s initiative to increase participation in Advance Placement courses by students in “underserved communities,” which was housed in the DOE’s Office of Equity & Access (OEA). Though she was successful in expanding AP courses, one subordinate reported her to the DOE’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Management (OEO), accusing her of “‘microaggressions’ toward people of color. Although her comments, according to OEO, did not rise to the level of discrimination, some were inappropriate.

Several of her subordinates also accused her of “holding employees of color back.” When she complained to the head of the OEA, she was purportedly “scolded.”

Equity agenda. In 2018, the new DOE chancellor implemented an “equity agenda” to tackle racial and economic disparities among students in their access to privileges within the school system. He also mandated implicit bias trainings among DOE staff and during the first training in May 2018, participants were told that “white colleagues must take a step back and yield to colleagues of color” and “recognize that values of [w]hite culture are supremacist.” During a subsequent overnight retreat, speakers stated that “white culture’s values” are “homogenous and supremacist” and the employee was told that her “interest in excellence was perfectionism and consistent with white supremacy.”

White privilege. During additional trainings, the OEA’s senior director declared that “white toxicity is in the air, and we all breathe it in.” When the employee refused to participate in a particular break-out session, she was purportedly told she was a “horrible person.” According to the employee, as a result of racial tensions from the trainings, a subordinate accused her of making a “race-based judgment” when she asked why the subordinate was late for a meeting she was supposed to lead. The subordinate later told the employee “How dare you approach me out of your white privilege.” Although the employee complained, nothing happened.

Supervisory duties removed. In March 2019, the employee’s supervisory responsibilities were removed although her title and pay remained the same. The employee claimed she was told that the team needed “time to heal.” Not long after that, many of her duties were transferred to a subordinate.

Post article. Around this time, several Caucasian employees contacted the New York Post about the equity agenda. Although the employee spoke anonymously about the trainings, the Post contacted the DOE to confirm her title. It subsequently published two articles titled “Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza accused of demoting admins because they were white” and “Richard Carranza held ‘white supremacy culture’ training for school admins.” At a subsequent meeting, the employee was told that if she was “not willing to do the [equity] work,” she should go. She ultimately resigned in September 2019.

Lower court proceedings. The employee then sued, asserting claims of race discrimination under Section 1983 and the district court granted summary judgment to her employer.

Demotion. Affirming summary judgment against her claim the DOE had a racially discriminatory policy that caused her demotion, the Second Circuit noted testimony from the OEA Senior Strategy and Policy Advisor, who also served as the employee’s leadership coach, that many of the employee’s team members did not believe she was an effective leader and thought she created chaos and a negative work environment. Team members also expressed that she “was very inconsistent in the way she enforced rules and policies, that she was overly harsh with some employees and overly accommodating with others” and did not “conduct herself always professionally in small group and team settings.” Further, the employee was unable to show that the individuals who removed her supervisory responsibilities were motivated by racial discrimination.

Hostile work environment. As to her hostile work environment claim, however, the court found evidence of racist comments during bias training, including that the “values of [w]hite culture are supremacist” and that there “is white toxicity in the air, and we all breathe it in.” There was also segregation of white employees during one session as participants were ordered as to racial privilege associated with whiteness and physically “lined up to reveal the dividing ‘color line of privileges that favored whites.’”

In addition, there was evidence that racialized comments were expressed outside the trainings, that conversations took on a racialized tone, and that OEA staff directed terminology from the trainings at the employee, including telling her she was racist and labeling her as “white and fragile” when she disciplined or managed subordinates. From this, said the court, a rational juror could find there was a “consistent ‘pattern’ wherein the employee could expect [racist] remarks and other harassment at any time.”

The court also pointed to comments directed to another DOE employee of partially white parentage calling her a “slave master” and a “white dominant leader” when she attempted to monitor another individual.

DOE’s knowledge. The employee also presented evidence the DOE knew about the racialized harassment but failed to intervene. Not only did she complain to her supervisors on several occasions, her attorney wrote to the DOE on her behalf but the DOE never took any action. Instead, the employee alleged, her supervisors dismissed her concerns, scolded her, told her the trainings were not going to change, and put on her the onus of stopping the harassment.

Municipal policy. There was also evidence the hostile work environment was attributable to a municipal policy, said the court, noting that a reasonable juror could “find that the DOE consistently ignored racial harassment of Caucasian employees in trainings and workplace interactions, ‘support[ing] the inference that policymakers, at the very least, had a custom or practice of acquiescing to [such racial] misconduct.’”

Specifically, the employee presented evidence of racial harassment that occurred repeatedly over the course of 2018 and 2019 in trainings and workplace interactions as well as evidence she complained to supervisors and requested their help numerous times about the racialized workplace interactions and training sessions, and even had an attorney contact the DOE on her behalf. Despite this, her supervisors routinely dismissed the harassment.

And while the DOE argued that the alleged hostile work environment could not be attributable to a policy because the chancellor did not directly oversee the implicit bias trainings, a number of the sessions were sponsored by individual DOE departments and occurred outside the formal implicit bias training program, and some of the statements were expressed by coworkers or pertained to general workplace disagreements with the employee, the court found it was not necessary that the chancellor was directly involved in each step of the trainings. Rather, it was sufficient that he created or tolerated “a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred.”

Moreover, even if some of the comments occurred outside the formal training program or were expressed by the employee’s colleagues in the context of workplace disagreements, the OEA, the court continued, was tasked with developing, scaling, and helping to lead the trainings and there was evidence that racist sentiments spilled over from the trainings to other workplace interactions as DOE employees directed language from the trainings at the employee. Finding a fact dispute as to whether the alleged hostile work environment was attributable to a municipal policy, the court vacated summary judgment against this claim.

Constructive discharge. Finally, affirming summary judgment as to the employee’s constructive discharge claim, the court found that while she established that her working conditions had been abusive and unpleasant, she failed to show the DOE intentionally created a workplace that would be so intolerable that she “would have felt compelled to resign.”

The case is No. 24-972-cv.

Judge: Leval, P.

Attorneys: Brian Heller (Schwartz Perry & Heller) for Leslie Chislett. Lauren L. O’Brien, New York City Law Department, for New York City Department of Education.

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees Discharge ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews GCNNews