Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D.C. Cir.: Despite management’s race-based remarks, sales director can’t revive Title VII claims, (Sep 9, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The remarks included a comment by the senior living community’s executive director that a third-party employee was an “ignorant black bitch.”

Affirming summary judgment against the Title VII race discrimination claim of a Black sales and marketing director for a senior living community, the D.C. Circuit found that several alleged statements by management, including referring to a third-party worker as an “ignorant black bitch” and calling a group of African-American men “monkeys,” were not direct evidence of race-based discrimination and the employee failed to show her termination for insubordination and unprofessional conduct was pretextual. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the employee’s retaliation claim as well as her hostile work environment claim, but on the alternate ground that it was untimely. In addition, the court affirmed the dismissal of her public policy wrongful termination and tortious interference with business relations claims. Judge Wilkins, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that the district court’s hostile work environment analysis “was irreconcilable with Meritor’s endorsement of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Rogers” (Latture v. Priority Life Care, LLC, No. 25-7063 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 2026)).

Hired in January 2021 as the sales and marketing director by the family-run business that manages senior living communities throughout the United States, the employee was charged with preparing a new facility for its grand opening in the coming months. Her job duties included collaborating with local community agencies to generate a positive facility image, screening potential residents, and ensuring appropriate admission papers and signatures were obtained from residents or responsible parties prior to admission.

The employee reported directly to the executive director of the facility and also worked with the business office manager and the regional director of operations, all three of whom were white women.

Race-based comments. She alleged that in the spring of 2021, she was subjected to a series of racially discriminatory comments by the three women, including the regional director referring to local Black residents in the surrounding area as “you people” and “these people,” remarks that “[t]hey live in the ghetto,” and commentary describing a group of Black men gathered at a gas station near the satellite office as “monkeys” and a “pack of animals.” She also claimed the executive director called a third-party worker an “ignorant black bitch” and when confronted by the employee, stated “[w]ell, at least I didn’t call her the N-word.” The business office manager also purportedly described a Black woman loitering outside of a liquor store near the office as “smell[ing] like [c]ooch,” and another white employee described the area surrounding the facility as “the straight up hood with nothing but ghetto [B]lacks and hood rats.”

PIP. When the 150-unit facility opened on June 4, it only had one resident and by July 2, it only had three. An investigation by management revealed that the employee had not been consistently utilizing various marketing tools and tracking metrics to manage prospective client inquiries or execute targeted email campaigns to optimize outreach. When the issues persisted, the employee was placed on a performance improvement plan on July 6.

Contentious meeting. On August 9, the employee responded angrily to the executive director when asked if she had called a prospective resident over the weekend. Although the business office manager intervened, the employee aimed additional verbal comments at her. Two days later, the executive director, regional director, and a VP of sales and marketing discussed the employee’s outburst in an email chain and the regional director ultimately recommended firing her for “insubordination and aggressive behavior.”

Termination and offer recission. The employee was terminated on August 12 and replaced with a Black man that same month. She received an employment offer in November 2023 from another assisted living facility that was later rescinded. According to the employee, the recission was due to disparaging comments made by her former coworkers at a Medicaid Provider meeting.

Lower court proceedings. The employee subsequently sued, alleging claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and tortious interference with business relations and race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The district court dismissed her state-law claims and later granted summary judgment against her Title VII claims.

Wrongful termination. In support of her public policy wrongful discharge claim, the employee alleged that she felt “pressured to move in residents without the requisite assessments or executed contracts, in violation of applicable Medicare and Medicaid regulations,” and by the executive director’s insistence that she “backdate mandatory District of Columbia medical clearance forms” for certain prospective residents. Her opposition to these practices, she argued, precipitated her termination and that the totality of these facts relieved her of any obligation to identify a “specific statute, regulation, or constitutional provision in [her] complaint” underlying her claim.

Disagreeing, the D.C. Circuit explained that the employee was required, under the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, to allege a violation of a “clear mandate of public policy solidly based on statute” and sweeping references to District of Columbia and Medicare and Medicaid laws did not supply the required specificity. Accordingly, the court found this claim was properly dismissed.

Tortious interference. Affirming the dismissal of the employee’s tortious interference with business relations claim as well, which she based on the rescinded employment offer, the court found she failed to sufficiently plead the requisite elements of knowledge and intent. While she argued that the executive director and business officer manager knew of her employment offer, she failed to allege that in the complaint and one “cannot intend to interfere with an employment offer of which they were unaware.” Nor did she allege that either were present at the Medicaid provider meeting, what disparaging comments about her were made, or which representatives of the prospective employer were in attendance. “The facts pleaded here are anything but well pleaded,” said the court.

Race discrimination. Turning to the employee’s race discrimination claim, the court first rejected her contention that the various race-based comments constituted direct evidence of discrimination. None of the statements established racial bias in the termination decision and some were attributable to individuals without the power to fire her.

Applying the burden shifting framework, the court, after noting that the employer proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action—insubordination and unprofessional conduct—examined the employee’s evidence of pretext. According to the employee, the executive director submitted false accusations that directly led to her discharge. Presuming she was referring to the email chain between the executive director, the regional manager, and the VP, the court noted that those emails were consistent with the employer’s justification that it fired the employee due to her insubordination and unprofessional conduct at the August 9 meeting.

And while the employee also argued that her termination was pretext for racial discrimination based on circumstances that gave rise to her placement on the PIP, the PIP was only issued after data revealed underwhelming resident admissions when the facility opened and then again later that summer and it drew only on her performance-related deficiencies. Moreover, the employee conceded that she was uncertain whether race influenced her placement on the PIP. Thus, the court found the employer was entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Retaliation. In support of her retaliation claim, which was based on her objection to the executive director’s “ignorant black bitch” comment, the employee pointed to “a pattern of retaliation” that included being “falsely accused of abusing sick leave and reprimanded, excluded from key meetings, placed on a backdated PIP[,] and ultimately terminated.” But the termination decision, observed the court, was made by the regional director and there was no evidence she knew about the employee’s objection to the executive director’s statement at the time she was terminated.

Further, said the court, the employee’s objection to the comment occurred three months before she was placed on the PIP and this timing, without more, undermined any potential connection between the two. Accordingly, the court found summary judgment appropriate as to this claim as well.

Hostile work environment. Turning finally to the district court’s determination that the alleged discriminatory comments were neither severe nor pervasive enough to support a hostile work environment claim because they were intermittent, not related to the employee’s race, and not directed to her, the court affirmed summary judgment on the alternate ground that the claim was untimely. Her charge reached conduct on or after July 30, 2021, and she identified no act on or after that date that produced a hostile environment. The August 10—12 email communications solely concerned her performance and workplace conduct and had nothing to do with her race and her termination, as already explained, was not part of the same alleged racially hostile work environment.

Concurrence. In a concurring opinion, Judge Wilkins “highlighted a rising trend in cases involving hostile work environment claims, in which courts have found that discriminatory conduct, no matter how egregious, cannot sustain such a claim because the offensive conduct was not directly aimed at the plaintiff and the protected class to which they belong. This view is demonstrably mistaken.” According to Judge Wilkins, the district court’s primary basis for dismissing the alleged discriminatory comments was that they were not explicitly directed at the employee. “This was error.”

“As Meritor’s endorsement of Rogers made clear, a hostile work environment claim can be based on statements and actions directed to persons other than the plaintiff, particularly when they are directed to persons of the same race as the plaintiff. The requirement that conduct must be ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment’ imposes no corollary requirement that the discriminatory conduct be directed at the victim.”

The case is No. 25-7063.

Judge: Wilkins, R.

Attorneys: David A. Branch (Law Office of David A. Branch) for Gina Latture. James Joseph Murphy (Ogletree Deakins) for Priority Life Care, LLC.

Companies: Priority Life Care, LLC

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims TortClaims Procedure DistrictofColumbiaNews GCNNews