Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D.D.C.: Jury could find that Amtrak lowballed Black internal applicant based on race, (Mar 3, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

A manager allegedly said she had a “plan for [the applicant] so she stays where she is.”

A reasonable jury could find that Amtrak intentionally lowballed a Black applicant on an internal job offer because the hiring manager did not want a Black person on his team, a federal district court in D.C. found. Although the plaintiff, who declined the job because of the salary, failed to meet the high threshold of showing direct evidence of race discrimination, the hiring manager for the position allegedly told a new hire on his team not to worry about whether she would be working with “those n*****s” because he had a “plan for [the applicant] so she stays where she is,” and a jury could conclude that the plaintiff was offered $3,000 less than the initially proposed salary for the position because the hiring manager intervened (Kroon v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 23-cv-2948 (CRC) (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2025)).

Procurement technician. The employee is a Black woman who has worked for Amtrak in various positions since 2011. In 2022, she was employed as a procurement technician, earning approximately $70,000 annually.

New opening. In May 2022, Amtrak listed a job opening for a new position, Vehicle Vendor Services Associate. The posting did not provide a specific salary but identified the pay band as “C1N.” She applied and requested a salary of $75,000.

Qualified. Amtrak’s internal “recruiter” for this position, who screens candidates for open positions by comparing their resumes to the job’s qualifications, determined that the employee was qualified for the Vehicle Vendor Services Associate position and passed along her application for an interview.

Hiring manager’s alleged comments. She interviewed with the hiring manager for the position and two others in late May 2022. Less than two weeks later, however, another Amtrak employee said she overheard the hiring manager talking to a new hire on his management team. The new hire reportedly told the hiring manager, “I don’t want to work with those n*****s.”

“Don’t worry,” the hiring manager is said to have replied. “I’ve got a plan for [the applicant] so she stays where she is. Don’t worry about who you’ll be working with.”

Got the job. The employee’s application proceeded, and managers decided to offer her the job following a “consensus meeting,” in which her interviewers discussed her candidacy.

Pay-cut. However, according to the employee, after her interview, the hiring manager rang her cell phone to ask whether she would accept the position for $65,000 or “what [she] would take.” She recounted telling him that she would not accept $65,000 because that was lower than her current $70,000 salary.

Salary discussions. On June 21, 2022, the recruiter met with the hiring manager to discuss salary offers for the candidates, and a Microsoft Teams invitation for the meeting listed what appeared to be proposed salaries of “$67K” for the employee and “$64K” for an external candidate who was white.

Offer declined. At the end of June, however, the recruiter called her to offer her the job—at $64,000. The employee was disappointed and claims that, when she asked the recruiter why the salary was so low, the recruiter responded that she had wanted to offer her more, but the hiring manager would not let her. The recruiter disputed this account, testifying at her deposition that she proposed the $64,000 salary, and that the hiring manager played no role in arriving at that number.

The employee declined the job offer because of the salary, and Amtrak hired two external, white candidates, at the same $64,000 salary it offered her.

Lawsuit. The employee sued Amtrak, alleging employment discrimination based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and seeking compensation for emotional distress and lost income, as well as punitive damages. The parties engaged in discovery, and Amtrak moved for summary judgment.

Direct evidence. The court first found that the employee failed to present direct evidence of race discrimination. She asserted that “[The hiring manager] stated explicitly how he would prevent [her] from taking the promotion”—by “offering [her] significantly less money because she is Black,” but that was not accurate, according to the court.

In fact, said the court, when the new hire on his team reportedly told the hiring manager that she did not want to “work with those n*****s,” the hiring manager replied that she need “not worry about who... [she would] be working with” because he had “a plan for [the employee] so she stays where she is.” Significantly, according to the court, the hiring manager “did not say what his plan was.” And though the plaintiff theorized that it was to lowball her so she would not take the job, “an inferential step is required to connect [the hiring manager’s] alleged discriminatory motive to his alleged conduct.”

Prima facie case. Turning to the McDonnell-Douglas analysis, however, the court found that the employee presented a prima facie case of race discrimination. She is a member of a protected class based on her race, the alleged adverse employment action was the $64,000 salary offer and the hiring manager reportedly telling a new hire on his team not to worry about whether she would be working with “those n*****s” because he had a “plan.” This created an inference of discrimination, as did the conversations she recounted with the hiring manager about what salary she would accept. A reasonable juror could conclude that his “plan” to keep a Black person from joining his team was to offer her a salary he knew she would not take.

Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. However, Amtrak advanced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the salary offer: $64,000 was “at the top of the pay band set by Amtrak’s Compensation department.”

Pretext. Finally, the employee made a sufficient showing of pretext to survive summary judgment. First, the Microsoft Teams meeting invitation from the recruiter to the hiring manager referenced what appeared to be a proposed salary of $67,000 for her. Neither side offered evidence as to why the $67,000 salary figure was included in the invitation or whether it was discussed at a subsequent meeting. Absent additional detail, the salary reference supported a reasonable inference that the recruiter initially recommended a $67,000 salary and thus did not believe she was limited to offering the employee $64,368, as she later claimed in her deposition.

Second, the employee stated in her declaration that the hiring manager told her she had wanted to offer her more money, but the hiring manager would not let her. Amtrak dismissed her statement as “unadorned,” but “party’s own sworn testimony can alone defeat summary judgment,” observed the court. And balancing this evidence, a jury could conclude that the employee was offered only $64,000 because the hiring manager intervened. And, if the court were to credit the proffered account of the hiring manager’s overheard conversation with his new hire—along with the employee’s account of her interactions with him about what salary she would accept and whether he was scaring her away from the job—a jury “could find he did so because of [her] race,” concluded the court.

The case is No. 23-cv-2948 (CRC).

Judge: Cooper, C.

Attorneys: Kathryn Averwater (Casey Jones Law Firm) for Eloise Kroon. Alison N. Davis (Littler Mendelson) for National Railroad Passenger Corp. d/b/a Amtrak.

Companies: National Railroad Passenger Corp.; Amtrak

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination RemediesDamages DistrictofColumbiaNews