Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—4th Cir.: African-American police officer, fired after bachelorette party altercation, stated race discrimination claim, (Jan 7, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She had testified against a coworker, a male sergeant who was not Black and who struck her friend in the face.

An African-American former police officer for the City of Baltimore, Maryland, investigated and fired after she testified in the criminal assault trial of a police sergeant who struck her friend in the face during an altercation outside a nightclub where the officer was celebrating her bachelorette party, stated a race discrimination claim, the Fourth Circuit held. She adequately alleged that multiple white or non-Black comparators engaged in conduct similar to her own but received disparate treatment. However, because the chain of events leading to her discharge began long before she engaged in any protected activity, the former officer’s retaliation claim was properly dismissed. Her Monell claim likewise failed in the absence of specific factual allegations of a widespread pattern or practice. Judge Wilkinson dissented (Johnson v. Baltimore City, No. 25-1124 (4th Cir. Jan. 6, 2025)).

Bachelorette party. The appellant, an African-American police officer employed by Baltimore City, was at a nightclub celebrating her bachelorette party on August 26, 2018, when an altercation occurred outside between a member of her party and an on-duty Baltimore police sergeant. The sergeant struck the officer’s friend, a woman, in the face. A security guard present at the scene testified that the sergeant “pulled back his fist all the way and then hit [Appellant’s friend].”

Sergeant charged. Following the incident, the department’s Internal Affairs Division interviewed all parties present, including the officer, and when the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City received the case and reviewed the evidence, it “decided to... pursue charges against [the sergeant].”

Officer’s grand jury testimony. A grand jury was convened and, in January 2019, the officer testified before the grand jury against the sergeant regarding the nightclub incident. According to her complaint, following her grand jury testimony, she was told by a police lieutenant that “she was being ‘blackballed’ by [Appellee] and that ‘Internal Affairs is up your a**.’”

Internal affairs investigation. In February 2019, the sergeant was indicted for second degree assault and misconduct in office, but in June, Internal Affairs notified the officer that she was being investigated in relation to the incident. Internal Affairs turned its investigation of her over to the State’s Attorney for assessment of criminal charges, and the latter declined to bring any charges against her or any other member of her party.

Trial testimony. The State’s Attorney proceeded to trial against the sergeant, and during the bench trial, which took place in September and October 2019, the officer testified against him for the prosecution. Following her testimony, an Assistant State’s Attorney told her, “I feel bad for you; just be prepared that the shit storm is coming because [Internal Affairs] is coming for you.”

Sergeant convicted, remains employed. The sergeant was found guilty of second degree assault and misconduct in office, and his conviction was twice affirmed on appeal, first, by the Appellate Court of Maryland and then by the Maryland Supreme Court. As a result of his conviction, he was suspended and placed on supervised probation pending his appeals, but the city never pursued his removal from employment, and he continues to remain employed by the city.

Disciplinary charges and suspension. On June 4, 2020, Internal Affairs interviewed the officer as part of the investigation against her. And on June 11, 2020, Internal Affairs filed disciplinary charges against her for “committing an assault on August 26, 2018, failing to notify her supervisors of the assault on August 26, 2018, making false statements in her interview on August 26, 2018, and making false statements in her interview on June 4, 2020.” Following these charges, she was suspended with pay.

EEOC charge and administrative hearing. She filed an EEOC charge on February 16, 2021, alleging she was subjected to “unequal terms and conditions of employment when [she] was informed that [Appellee] was seeking to keep [her] on suspension while seeking termination for allegedly making false statements during the investigation.” Despite her EEOC complaint, however, the disciplinary charges against her proceeded to an administrative trial board hearing on May 24—25, 2022.

During these proceedings, she alleged, she learned that another fellow officer filed a false report about the nightclub incident wherein the other officer claimed that two witnesses identified the appellant as the attacker. She alleged that the falsity of this report became apparent during the administrative trial board hearing because the other officer’s statements were contradicted by her own body camera footage. The investigator assigned to the internal investigation against the appellant testified that he had reviewed the other officer’s body camera footage and written report and observed discrepancies between the two. Yet, according to the appellant, the investigator “neither questioned nor charged the other officer for submitting a false report and giving a false statement.

Police Integrity Bureau charge. On May 31, 2022, the officer filed an internal complaint with the Police Integrity Bureau against the other officer and the investigator alleging unfair and disparate treatment.

Lawsuit, dismissal, and appeal. The Appellant was forced by the city to submit her resignation in lieu of termination the next day, June 1, 2022, and she sued on August 14, 2023, amending her complaint on June 14, 2024, to again allege race discrimination, and hostile environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII; municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); and violations of Maryland’s Fair Employment Practices Act.

The district court dismissed all her claims, and she timely appealed to the Fourth Circuit, challenging only dismissal of the Title VII race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and Monell claims.

Race discrimination. Taking up the former officer’s race discrimination claim first, the appeals court noted that the parties agreed that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged her membership in a protected class and her satisfactory job performance. And the district court further determined that her “allegation that she was forced to resign satisfies the adverse action requirement of Plaintiff’s disparate treatment under Title VII.” What remained to determine was whether the adverse employment action occurred “under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.”

Here, the former officer identified fully 13 “similarly situated comparators” for her Title VII disparate treatment claim. One of these was the sergeant, a “non-black” male police officer who was found guilty of assault and misconduct but was neither terminated nor forced to resign. Another was the investigator, a white male officer who allegedly made a false statement but “never faced any consequence[s].”

Viewing the facts in the light favorable to the former officer, the Fourth Circuit concluded that she alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the alleged comparators were similarly situated. First, she and all the proposed comparators are Baltimore police officers, and, therefore, subject to the same standards. Second, while no single comparator perfectly aligned with every incident of her conduct, the analysis did not require a perfect one-on-one fit. Instead, the appeals court observed, the analysis focuses on the “similarity between [the] comparators” and their conduct such that a jury could reach an inference of discrimination, so long as the comparison is “meaningful.”

Comparators. The comparators here fit within those parameters, the Fourth Circuit concluded. The officer was charged with misconduct for assault, failing to notify her supervisors of assault, and making false statements. And many of the comparators to whom she pointed allegedly committed the same or similar offenses. Indeed, her complaint adduced at least six other officers who were charged with assault and seven others who allegedly made false statements, all without being suspended and terminated.

And then there was the sergeant, a “non-black” male who “pulled back his fist all the way and then hit” a woman in the face. Based on this conduct, stemming from the exact 2018 nightclub incident in which the former officer was involved, the sergeant was found guilty of assault and misconduct following a bench trial. According to the officer he also allegedly “made multiple false statements... during his trial testimony.” He was never terminated, forced to resign, or even demoted, and he continues to work as a police officer for the city.

Taking all the allegations together, the appeals court found that the former officer provided multiple white or non-Black comparators who allegedly engaged in conduct similar to hers but received disparate treatment. Dismissal of the race discrimination claim was accordingly reversed.

Retaliation. The former officer’s retaliation claim, however, was properly dismissed in the absence of sufficient evidence of causation. “[T]he events here do not support a plausible inference of a causal link between the protected activity -- the February 16, 2021 EEOC Complaint -- and the forced termination,” the Fourth Circuit concluded. The “chain was set off long before Appellant filed her EEOC complaint.” Her trial board hearing and forced resignation followed from charges initially levied against her in June 2020, eight months before she filed her EEOC Complaint.

Monell claim. The former officer’s Monell claim likewise failed in the absence of allegations of “the existence of a practice that is so ‘persistent and widespread as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.’” Here, the Fourth Circuit noted, “proof of a single incident of the unconstitutional activity charged is not sufficient to prove the existence of a municipal custom,” and the only specific instances the former officer alleged in support of her Monell claim were her own.

Dissent. Dissenting, Judge Wilkinson said he would affirm the district court’s entire judgment, including its dismissal of the plaintiff’s race discrimination claim under Title VII. “Law enforcement officials,” he argued, “cannot function without trusting one another, and the BPD in particular has worked hard of late to rid itself of the many credibility issues plaguing its workforce.” As to the plaintiff’s comparator evidence, Wilkinson further argued that her complaint “describes merely a hodgepodge of BPD employees who all differed from her in material ways—be it in their rank, misconduct, or guilt.”

The case is No. 25-1124.

Judge: Thacker, S.

Attorneys: Dionna Maria Lewis (District Legal Group) for Wanda Johnson. Christine Ellen White, City of Baltimore Law Department, for Baltimore City, Maryland and Baltimore Police Department.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation IndividualRights PublicEmployees MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews