Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—8th Cir.: Black VA employee’s claims collapse due to dearth of race-related evidence, pretext, (Sep 2, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

He failed to establish his “unacceptable” performance appraisal was an adverse employment action.

Affirming a district court’s ruling in the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ favor on a Black employee’s race discrimination and hostile work environment claims, the Eighth Circuit found he failed to show the employer treated a comparator more favorably or that the employer’s actions were pretext. The court also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his retaliation claim where the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the agency’s proffered explanation for his performance review was pretextual, and the other proffered adverse actions were insufficiently close in time to his protected activities (Woods v. Collins, No. 24-2609 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)).

The employee began working as a program support assistant in the VA Office of Community Care in September 2019. The employee had two supervisors and claimed he began to experience conflicts with them shortly after he started. They allegedly failed to provide him with adequate training to perform certain job responsibilities, assigned him to tasks outside his scope of responsibilities, and erroneously charged him as absent without leave on several occasions. He also claimed they pressured him to write a false report about the performance of another Black employee and denied his requests to work from home during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic while permitting a similarly situated white employee to do so.

Discrimination complaint. After an incident involving a VA employee refusing to give him a mask when he came to work on a personal matter, he complained to his supervisor that the incident was discriminatory. He claimed she told him to get out of her office and said there was no race discrimination at the VA. In July 2020, he filed an administrative complaint, alleging that he had suffered harassment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for an employment complaint that he had filed “many years” earlier when he worked in a different department.

Performance review, suspension. In November 2020, the employee received an “unacceptable” performance review, which he disputed. In February 2021, he was assigned to work at a COVID-19 screening tent outside of the office during the investigation into his workplace conduct. A few months later, he was suspended for five days based on three instances of inappropriate conduct, including the incident at the COVID-19 screening tent, two incidents where he yelled at his manager, and six instances of failure to print and mail letters to veteran patients. He claimed his employer placed him on a performance improvement plan when he returned to work.

Prior proceedings. The employee filed another administrative complaint in May 2021 that alleged harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. He later brought this action under Title VII, claiming race discrimination and retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The district court granted summary judgment for the VA Secretary. The employee now appeals his claims of disparate treatment, exposure to a hostile work environment, and retaliation.

Disparate treatment claim. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the Secretary’s favor on the employee’s disparate treatment claim, rejecting the employee’s arguments for various reasons. First, he argued his “unacceptable” performance appraisal supported a claim of unlawful discrimination. The court disagreed, finding he failed to establish the appraisal was an adverse employment action. He failed to point to evidence that the appraisal was a basis for a reduction in pay, transfer, or other change to a term or condition of his employment.

Remote work request. Second, the court rejected his argument that his employer allowed a similarly situated white employee to work remotely while he was not allowed to do so. Although he testified that he submitted a completed telework agreement “by email” in April 2020, the earliest completed agreement in the record was dated July 10, 2020. His unsupported allegation that he submitted the form months earlier was insufficient to support a finding in his favor. There was no evidence the comparator employee was permitted to work from home without submitting a completed telework agreement.

Transferred to different job. Third, the court rejected his argument that only Black employees were transferred out of the Office of Community Care and given menial jobs. The evidence to which he referred did not support a conclusion that any other Black employee was transferred or given a menial job. His own work assignment at the COVID-19 screening tent was insufficient to support an inference that he was transferred due to his race.

Suspension. Regarding the employee’s final disparate treatment claim argument, the court found the agency offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his suspension. He failed to mail patient letters on six days. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer’s explanation was pretextual. Thus, the appeals court found the district court properly dismissed this claim.

No hostile work environment. Likewise, the appeals court found the district court properly granted summary judgment on the employee’s hostile work environment claim. He cited miscellaneous grievances about his work environment, including his supervisors’ alleged failures to train him and to provide him with certain office supplies, several instances where he was wrongfully charged as absent without leave, and instances of his supervisors yelling or disrespecting him and other Black employees. “These points do not further his claim because he offers little more than speculation and conjecture that the incidents had anything to do with race,” the court wrote.

Retaliation claim fails. Turning to the employee’s retaliation claim, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, finding the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate a submissible claim of unlawful retaliation. The employee asserted his supervisors retaliated against him for three instances of protected activity: (1) his refusal to write a report against his Black colleague in January or February 2020; (2) his June 2020 complaint to his supervisor about racial discrimination when VA police were called on him; and (3) his July 2020 formal administrative complaint of discrimination.

Performance appraisal. The employee first argued his unacceptable performance appraisal was an adverse action that raised an inference of retaliation. The court disagreed.

Even assuming his negative appraisal was a materially adverse action, the agency offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for it. The employee failed to meet performance standards for the position. He disputed the legitimacy of this rating, claiming he did not receive adequate training for his timekeeping or note-taking responsibilities. At the same time, he admitted his employer furnished him with computer-based training modules and reading materials that described how to perform timekeeping functions. He pointed to no other specific training that he requested and did not receive. The evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the agency’s proffered explanation for the performance review was pretextual.

Screening tent. The employee’s next proffered adverse actions were his assignment to work in the COVID-19 screening tent in February 2021 and his designation in April 2021 for a performance improvement plan. These actions occurred more than seven months after his most recent protected activity. As such, they were too far removed from the July 2020 formal complaint to support an inference of discrimination based on timing alone, the court found.

Charges for absences. Finally, the court rejected the employee’s argument regarding instances in which he was charged absent without leave. One of the instances occurred in October 2019, before any protected activity in 2020, and far removed from the employment discrimination complaint he filed “many years” earlier.

Also, the charges for absences in May 2020 and January 2021 were at least three months after his then-most recent engagements in protected activity. Thus, timing alone was insufficient to support an inference of retaliatory motive. Accordingly, the court found his retaliation claim also failed and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

The case is No. 24-2609.

Judge: Colloton, S.

Attorneys: Rebecca M. Randles (Randles Mata) for Michael Woods. Jeffrey P. Ray, U.S. Attorney's Office, for Douglas A. Collins.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews