Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D.R.I.: Black public safety officer advances hostile work environment claim based on racial slur, (Jun 17, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The creation and maintenance of a hostile work environment is an adverse employment action.

A Black public safety officer can proceed to trial with his Title VII and state law race discrimination claims under a hostile work environment theory, a federal district court in Rhode Island ruled. Denying Providence College’s motion to dismiss his discrimination claims, the court found his qualifying anchoring event—his supervisor reading aloud a racial slur in an incident report at a department meeting—plausibly stated a claim for a hostile work environment. However, the court granted the college’s motion to dismiss his retaliation claims because he did not allege any materially adverse action resulting from his complaints about race discrimination (Dunbar v. Providence College, No. 24-251 WES (D.R.I. Jun. 16, 2025)).

The Black officer was the third-highest ranking officer in Providence College’s Public Safety Department. From 2015 to 2022, he alleged he was subjected to workplace discrimination based on his race and retaliated against for complaining about his discriminatory work environment. He alleged, among other concerns, that after he was promoted, his coworkers expressed their belief that he was only promoted due to his race. He also alleged he had been “ostracized,” “ousted from the chain of command,” stripped of some job duties, and excluded from joining certain campus events. Also during this timeframe, he reached out to a college representative to express concern that his supervisor was regularly hiring white employees while he was the only Black male in the department.

Complained to supervisor. In addition to complaining to the department’s director and HR, he complained via email to his supervisor about the discriminatory work environment, and they later met to discuss it. However, he did not allege his supervisor took any action against him because of those complaints. In a weekly department meeting after that discussion, his supervisor reviewed an incident where a student called a Black Providence police officer by a racial slur. When reviewing the incident report, his supervisor read the slur aloud.

Charges filed. Thereafter, the officer filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter. He then filed this lawsuit, alleging the college violated Title VII, Rhode Island’s Fair Employment Practices Act, and Rhode Island’s Civil Rights Act of 1990. The college filed this motion to dismiss.

Hostile work environment. Denying the college’s motion to dismiss the officer’s discrimination claims under Title VII, FEPA, and RICRA, the court found he stated a plausible claim for unlawful discrimination based on a hostile work environment. The court noted that most of the officer’s alleged discrete acts of discrimination were time-barred, but it found that his supervisor’s reading aloud of a racial slur from a police incident report constituted a qualifying anchoring event for purposes of his hostile work environment theory.

The next question, the court said, was whether that act plausibly stated a claim for a hostile work environment. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court found it did. The officer alleged a range of conduct from 2015 to 2022, which directly led him to complain to multiple college officials on numerous occasions and take two medical leaves of absence. From the totality of his allegations, it was plausible that the complained-of actions were motived by race.

The court rejected the college’s argument that the officer failed to make a connection between the alleged discriminatory acts and any adverse action. That position, the court said, “seems to misunderstand the nature of a hostile work environment theory, which takes the creation and maintenance of a hostile work environment as an adverse employment action itself.”

No adverse action. Turning to the officer’s retaliation claims under Title VII and FEPA, the court granted the college’s motion to dismiss because he did not allege any materially adverse action resulting from his complaints about race discrimination. After he contacted his supervisor in May 2021, he alleged that the two met to discuss his concerns. He did not allege that any action was taken against him as a result. In addition, in January 2022, he reached out to a college representative, but he did not allege any resulting action at all. Thus, the court said, the lack of supporting factual content meant that his claims for retaliation were not plausible.

The case is No. 24-251 WES.

Judge: Smith, W.

Attorneys: Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo (ODU Law Firm) for John Dunbar. Matthew Thomas Oliverio (Oliverio & Marcaccio) for Providence College.

Companies: Providence College

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation StateLawClaims RhodeIslandNews