Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—7th Cir.: Fired VA pharmacist, allegedly called ‘boy,’ failed to prove race discrimination, retaliation, (Jul 17, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

He alleged that, before his supervisor became his supervisor, the supervisor had used a southern accent to call out “What’s up, boy?” to him in a derogatory manner.

An African-American pharmacist for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), fired near the end of his probationary period for “careless work performance” and failure to follow policy and procedures, after filing an EEO complaint about a supervisor who had allegedly imitated “Ebonics” on numerous occasions, failed to establish Title VII race discrimination or retaliation, the Seventh Circuit found. The pharmacist admitted to making three medication errors leading up to his discharge, and he failed to substantiate that any alleged comparator, among four that he adduced, was treated more favorably by the agency (Abayomi v. Collins, No. 24-2943 (7th. Cir. July 16, 2026)).

Clinical pharmacist at VA. The plaintiff started working as a clinical pharmacist with the VA in Hines, Illinois, on May 3, 2015. He was the only African-American pharmacist at the Hines facility. As a pharmacist, he verified that medications prescribed by medical providers did not conflict with a patient’s other medications, were set to an appropriate dosage, and contained correct labels. Alongside other healthcare providers, he was responsible for ensuring appropriate dosing schedules.

Probationary. Once hired, he was on a yearlong probation. During probation—as the termination letter he ultimately received explained—termination is required whenever an employee’s “work performance or conduct fail[ed] to demonstrate fitness or qualifications for continued federal employment.” Regardless of probationary status, agency policy also permitted termination of any employee for making “a serious medication error that present[ed] a threat to patient safety,” even on a first offense.

One review. During his employment, he had only one performance review, in November 2015. For that review, which assessed the first five months of his employment, he received a “fully successful” rating (the middle of five ratings) for every category. His overall rating was also “fully successful.”

New supervisor and reporting structure. Shortly after that review, he began reporting to a new supervisor, the supervisor of inpatient pharmacy. This new supervisor reported to the associate chief of pharmacy, who in turn reported to the chief of pharmacy. The associate chief, for her part, was required to investigate serious medication errors made by pharmacists that were submitted through the agency’s reporting system or that she learned of from a pharmacist’s supervisor. She also was required to tell the chief of pharmacy if she learned of a medication error by a pharmacist under her supervision.

Productivity discussion. In February 2016, several months after the pharmacist’s performance review, the new supervisor spoke to him about his productivity and explained that it was too low. Within a few weeks, however, the supervisor reported to the associate chief that the pharmacist’s productivity had improved.

EEO complaint. Then, on March 7, 2016, approximately 10 months into his yearlong probation, the pharmacist filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint with the VA. The complaint accused the supervisor of “disparaging treatment and retaliation.” In the complaint, he alleged that the supervisor was, among other things, unfairly focusing on his performance, singling him out for counseling about low productivity, and unevenly handling his scheduling requests. He believed the supervisor’s treatment stemmed from racial bias against him, and specifically, he alleged that, before the supervisor became his supervisor, the supervisor had used a southern accent to call out “What’s up, boy?” to him in a derogatory manner. According to another African-American employee, the supervisor had also tried to tell a “Black joke” and, on numerous occasions, imitated “Ebonics.”

The EEO program manager at the Hines facility informed the employee’s supervisory chain—which included the supervisor, the associate chief, and the chief—of his complaint on March 15, and mediation was scheduled for April 20.

Medication errors. In early April, about a month after his EEO complaint, the VA started receiving anonymous reports by employees that the pharmacist had made several medication errors. On April 8, he allegedly incorrectly dispensed 5,000 units per milliliter of heparin instead of 1,000 units per milliliter, as ordered. On April 11, he allegedly incorrectly verified a prescribed order of epoetin alfa at an unusually high dose. On April 12, he allegedly dispensed an insulin injector pen, in violation of a policy to dispense insulin in vial form. On April 13, he allegedly incorrectly verified an IV bag of heparin with an auxiliary label reading “High Alert Epinephrine.”

On April 12, the associate chief conferred with the agency’s labor relations specialist about the first two errors, and he expressed that “ideally, [i]t would have been helpful, if there was some type of documented remedial training as a result of these 2 events.”

Weingarten investigation. About a week later, on April 19, the associate chief met with the pharmacist and his union representative to conduct a Weingarten investigation. Because such investigations may result in discipline or termination, agency employees are entitled to union representation. At the investigatory interview, the pharmacist denied committing the April 13 mislabeling, but admitted to the mistakes of April 8, April 11, and April 12.

EEO mediation. On April 20, the pharmacist participated in a mediation with the supervisor to address his earlier EEO complaint. During the mediation, the supervisor agreed to explore ways to improve the pharmacist’s schedule. The supervisor later advised HR that he did not want to be involved in personnel actions involving the pharmacist to avoid disturbing the resolution of the mediation and being accused of retaliation.

The pharmacist voluntarily withdrew his complaint that same day.

Discharge. Nine days later, the VA fired him. This was just four days shy of the end of his probationary period. The chief testified he was likely the final decisionmaker in terminating him, with the supervisor and the associate chief playing a role. The VA’s termination letter cited the pharmacist’s “careless work performance” and failure to follow the facility’s policy and procedures. It specifically referenced the April 8 and April 13 errors discussed at his Weingarten investigation.

Lawsuit and decision below. The pharmacist sued the VA, alleging race-based discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, and a federal district court granted the agency’s motion for summary judgment. It found that he could not make a prima facie case of race discrimination under McDonnellDouglas because he did not present evidence that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee of a different race. Even if he had presented such evidence, the court concluded, he could not meet his burden of showing the agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing him were pretextual. As for his retaliation claim, the district court held that he failed to show a causal connection between his statutorily protected activity and his firing. The pharmacist appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Race discrimination. Affirming, the appeals court found that the pharmacist’s own admissions during the investigation would make it difficult for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the VA’s rationale for firing him was a pretext to mask discriminatory animus. When asked about the April 8 heparin error, he admitted that he had dispensed the wrong amount because he “was rushing.” As to the April 13 labeling error, he agreed that it was his responsibility as a pharmacist to verify the correct label was in place, though he ultimately declined to admit to making the error because he could not rule out the label “was slapped on” after his verification. Finally, though the VA did not cite the remaining two errors in its letter, the pharmacist admitted to making them, stating that it was “more than likely” that he had confirmed the wrong dose of epoetin alfa on April 11 and that he was “for sure rushing” when he dispensed the insulin injector pen instead of doing so in vial form on April 12.

Comparators? The pharmacist also argued that the agency’s treatment of four other pharmacists who also made medication errors, three of whom are white and one of whom is Asian, showed that its reasons for terminating him were pretextual, but the court was likewise unpersuaded. He failed to provide evidence of purported errors for the Asian pharmacist and two of the three white pharmacists.

As for a third white male pharmacist, who resigned for medical reasons following a whistleblower complaint against him, an ensuing investigation, and an EEO complaint he later filed, the appeals court concluded that they were not similarly situated. They did not share a common decisionmaker because the chief who fired the plaintiff had left by time the white male pharmacist started working at the Hines facility. The white male pharmacist was also not a probationary employee when he made and was investigated for medical errors, and the investigation had cleared him of most of his alleged errors.

Retaliation. Finally, the pharmacist failed to establish that the VA retaliated against him for filing his EEO complaint, and the problem hinged on causation. His arguments that the VA’s reasons for firing him were pretextual failed for the reasons already discussed, and he also failed in his reliance upon what he argued was a suspiciously short time between when he filed his EEO complaint and when the Weingarten investigation began.

By the pharmacist’s account, the approximately two-month timeline from when he filed his EEO complaint to his termination supported an inference that availing himself of the complaint process marked him as a troublesome employee in the eyes of the VA, triggered the Weingarten investigation, and ultimately caused his termination. Here, acknowledging that “in cases where there is ‘corroborating evidence of retaliatory motive,’ an ‘interval of a few weeks or even months may provide probative evidence of the required causal nexus,’” the court noted that he failed to provide any such corroborating evidence to create a material dispute about the VA’s stated reason for his termination: his medication errors, three of which he admitted to making.

The judgment of the district court was accordingly affirmed.

The case is No. 24-2943.

Judge: Jackson-Akiwumi, C.

Attorneys: Paul William Ryan (CTM Legal Group) for Hakeem Abayomi. Sarah Terman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for Douglas A. Collins.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge Labor UnionsMembers PublicEmployees IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews