Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D. Or.: Black medical assistant’s race discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge claims advance, (May 2, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The allegations in support of the employee’s hostile work environment claim, if proved, provide direct and circumstantial evidence of her employer’s intentional discrimination.

A federal court in Oregon found that a Black medical assistant plausibly alleged that her employer, a medical practice and its owner, created a hostile work environment. The owner’s purported comments about her appearance and behavior as a Black woman “cannot be neatly reduced to distinct” offhand comments about her race, said the court. By expressing an adverse opinion and walking away, the employee implicitly and explicitly opposed her employer’s allegedly hostile and discriminatory conduct, and thus stated a plausible claim for retaliation. The court also ruled that the factual allegations in support of the wrongful discharge claim are distinct from the factual allegations in support of her discrimination and retaliation claims. Therefore, her wrongful discharge claim was not precluded by other statutory remedies (Bain v. Jinnah Internal Medicine, LLC, No. 6:24-cv-01714-MTK (D. Or. Apr. 30, 2025)).

Alleged comments. The employee alleged that her former employer subjected her to harassment and discrimination because of her race and sex, creating a hostile work environment. She claimed he made multiple comments about her race, would ask her to dress in certain ways, bought her clothes and asked her to wear them around the workplace, commented on and made fun of her weight and appearance, said men are “gods” and that women needed to listen to them, asked her about her dating life, and suggested that she buy a sex toy instead of using dating websites. He also allegedly referred to women using explicit and derogatory language in front of her.

Termination. On or around November 16, 2023, the employee took a medical leave of absence due to the harm to her mental health from her employer’s conduct. Several days later, the employer terminated her via email while she was still on medical leave. In the email, the employer stated that he was firing her effective December 20, 2023, because of her frequent occurrences of unannounced time off and being distracted at work.

The employee brought eleven claims for unlawful employment practices. The employer moved to dismiss five of her claims: race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge, aiding or abetting, and unpaid wages.

Race discrimination claims. The employee alleged race discrimination based on hostile work environment. The employer argued that his alleged comments related to the employee’s race were merely offhand and isolated incidents insufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment. The court disagreed. The employer’s alleged comments about her appearance and behavior as a Black woman “cannot be neatly reduced to distinct” offhand comments about her race, said the court. She alleged that the employer commented on her naturally dark and curly hair, the shape of her figure, and the color of her skin. These comments occurred in the context of his other hypersexualized and inappropriate comments about the physical appearance of the employee and other women.

The employee also alleged that his comments were unwelcome, and that his conduct altered the conditions of her employment to such an extent that she had to take medical leave from work for mental health purposes. Thus, she plausibly alleged that her employer created a hostile work environment.

The employer argued that his alleged comments were “simply too few and too innocuous to support a claim for intentional race discrimination.” This argument was unsupported by a citation to a legal authority and contrary to Ninth Circuit law, which requires “very little evidence,” the court stated. The allegations in support of the employee’s hostile work environment claim, if proved, provided direct and circumstantial evidence of the employer’s intentional discrimination. Thus, the court concluded, the employee plausibly alleged that her employer intentionally discriminated against her based on her status as a Black woman.

Retaliation. The employee also alleged that the employer terminated her in retaliation for her opposition to his hostile and discriminatory conduct. The employer argued that the employee failed to plausibly allege that she opposed his misconduct or that she was treated adversely in response to her opposition. The court again disagreed.

The employee alleged that the employer’s sexual and racial comments were unwelcome and made her feel extremely uncomfortable, which she expressed through her facial expressions, walking away (if possible), or verbally stating her discomfort. Often, the employer would respond by laughing in a mocking manner and saying he was “just joking” but would then increase his hostility towards her. By expressing an adverse opinion and walking away, said the court, the employee implicitly and explicitly opposed the employer’s allegedly hostile and discriminatory conduct.

The employee alleged that in response to her opposition, the employer increased his hostility towards her and that she was ultimately terminated because she resisted his unlawful practices by taking a leave of absence from the allegedly hostile environment. Thus, she plausibly stated a claim for retaliation, the court concluded.

Wrongful discharge claim. The employee next alleged that the employer committed the common law tort of wrongful discharge by terminating her because she invoked her right to sick leave. The employer argued that this claim was duplicative of, and therefore precluded by, her statutory claims for discrimination and retaliation. Once again, the court disagreed.

In Oregon, employees “discharged for exercising an employment related right of important public interest” may pursue a wrongful discharge claim. The employee’s allegation that she was terminated for taking protected sick leave constituted exercising an employment related right of important public interest. She alleged that Oregon has an important public policy that prohibits an employer from retaliating and discriminating against employees for inquiring about or invoking sick leave protections. She also alleged that she was terminated on the basis of her invocation and inquiry of sick time. Oregon courts recognize the right to take medical leave as an employment related right of important public interest.

Moreover, said the court, the factual allegations in support of the wrongful discharge claim are distinct from the factual allegations in support of the employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims. For example, her retaliation claim relied on her allegation that she opposed her employer’s hostile and discriminatory conduct related to her race and sex. In contrast, the employee’s wrongful discharge claim relied on her allegation that she was terminated for invoking her right to take sick leave. Therefore, the court concluded, her wrongful discharge was not precluded by other statutory remedies.

Aiding and abetting claim. The employee alleged that the employer violated Oregon law by “aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing” the medical LLC’s unlawful conduct. The employer argued that, because he was the sole owner and operator of the LLC, he could not aid or abet himself.

However, the court noted that any person, including a member directing the LLC, could be held individually liable for aiding or abetting the LLC’s unlawful conduct. The employer-physician and the medical LLC are each a “person” under Oregon law. The employee alleged that the employer-physician directed the medical LLC’s unlawful conduct. Therefore, the court concluded, the employee plausibly stated a claim under Oregon law for aiding and abetting.

Claim for unpaid wages. Finally, the employee alleged that the medical LLC violated Oregon law by failing to pay all wages due upon termination. The employer argued that the employee’s final paycheck claim should be dismissed because it was duplicative of her other wage claims. However, the court noted that a plaintiff may set out multiple alternative claims, regardless of consistency. Determination of whether the employee’s final paycheck claim was duplicative of her other unpaid wages claims is premature at the motion to dismiss stage, the court ruled.

The case is No. 6:24-cv-01714-MTK.

Judge: Kasubhai, M.

Attorneys: Talia Yasmeen Guerriero (Beacon Employment Law) for Nichole Susanne Bain. M. Joshua Masser (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani) for Jinnah Internal Medicine, LLC.

Companies: Jinnah Internal Medicine, LLC

Cases: RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation OregonNews