Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D.R.I.: Former car dealership employee, only Black person on team, advances bias claims, (Nov 6, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

She had worn a face mask during her interview, and her coworkers were surprised to discover she was not Asian based on her last name.

Denying summary judgment against a former car dealership employee’s Title VII and state-law claims for discrimination and retaliation, as well as a state-law claim for unpaid wages, a federal district court in Rhode Island determined that while the allegedly racially discriminatory comments made by her coworkers may have alone constituted stray remarks, she was able to cite to comparator evidence that suggested she was subjected to disparate treatment. Further, although she was hired and fired by the same manager within a short timeframe, the “same actor inference” was not implicated because the manager testified he was unaware of the employee’s race at the time he hired her. As to her unpaid wage claim, the employer failed to present evidence rebutting her unsupported claim (Wongbay v. Balise Toyota of Warwick, No. 22-cv-00458-MSM-AEM (D.R.I. Nov. 4, 2025)).

The employee in this case began working as a business development manager at the car dealership in August 2020. Her immediate supervisor described her as “the top performer” during the course of her employment, at least “[based on] numbers or monetarily.” Nevertheless, the employee was terminated in March 2021.

Performance issues? It was undisputed that there were no written records of either reprimands or formal warnings issued to the employee during her time at the dealership. The parties did present a handful of emails suggesting friction between the employee, her manager, and her supervisor regarding both her compliance with certain corporate policies and inaccuracies in some of her commission reporting.

In addition, following the employee’s termination, her supervisor purportedly drafted a document to be added to her HR file outlining a range of alleged infractions. Although the employer claimed the termination “followed a formal audit confirming misconduct,” it failed to produce any written record of that audit or any other authenticated records of the underlying performance data upon which the audit was allegedly premised.

Discrimination allegations. According to the employee, she was subject to several incidents that suggested she was fired for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons, rather than performance issues.

The employee wore a blue medical face mask during her initial interview which she contended, along with her last name, gave the impression that she was Asian, despite being Black. When she reported for work, one of her coworkers expressed surprise at her race and suggested the manager had thought she was Asian. This incident, asserted the employee, in conjunction with a number of purported workplace comments regarding contemporary political events as well as the fact that she was the only Black person on her team, contributed to a workplace pervaded with racially discriminatory attitudes. She claimed she reported the alleged racist remarks and discrimination to her supervisor and manager and protested her termination as being discriminatorily based at the time it occurred.

In addition, the employee cited unflattering comparisons to a previously terminated employee—herself of a minority race—allegedly made by her manager and fellow employees as contributing to a feeling of racial animus in the workplace. She also contended her white coworkers were treated differently—if not preferentially—despite engaging in similar conduct and despite the employee performing at a higher level. After the employee was terminated, she filed this lawsuit, asserting claims for race and color discrimination, as well as retaliation, in violation of Title VII and state law, and unpaid wages in violation of state law. The court addressed each claim in turn.

Discrimination claims. With regard to the employee’s race discrimination claims, the employer argued that there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between her race and termination. It further argued that even if the employee could establish a prima facie case for discrimination, it had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The court was not moved, finding genuine disputes over material facts.

Stray remarks. Although the allegedly racially discriminatory commentary made by the employee’s coworkers may have, on its own, constituted “stray workplace remarks” insufficient to support a finding of discrimination, the employee had cited to comparator evidence that suggested she may have been subjected to disparate treatment compared to her coworkers for similar workplace conduct.

“Same actor” inference. As to whether the “same actor” inference could be used to excuse the employer’s decision to fire the employee, the court determined it could not. Although the employee was both hired and fired by the same manager, the manager testified that he was unaware of her race at the time of her hire. As such, the employee had satisfied her prima facie burden.

Pretext. Finding the employer had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision—performance and workplace compliance issues—the court shifted the burden back to the employee to show that these reasons were pretextual.

Here, the employee pointed to comparator evidence showing that her workplace performance exceeded that of her coworkers. Further, there was some dispute as to the extent that her coworkers engaged in similar workplace errors without being fired.

Given this purported disparity in treatment, coupled with the lack of documentary evidence justifying the employer’s decision to terminate the employee, and the dispute over purported performance issues and allegations of racial animus in the workplace, the court found summary judgment against the discrimination claims to be unwarranted.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s retaliation claims, she alleged that she engaged in protected activity by reporting racial discrimination to her supervisor and manager, and that her termination was causally connected to her protected conduct. The employer disputed both the employee’s claimed reporting and any causal connection to her termination.

Whether the employee made a report of racial discrimination was a clear issue of material fact based on conflicting deposition testimony, observed the court. Further, while the employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the employee applied with equal force to her retaliation claims, so too did her allegations that those reasons were pretextual. As such, the court denied summary judgment against these claims.

Unpaid wages. Finally, the court addressed the employee’s state-law claim for unpaid wages. She alleged that she was owed approximately $3,600 in commission payments from her last month of employment, an allegation that the employer disputed. Neither side presented clear documentary support for its position.

Based on the employee’s sworn deposition testimony and the fact that the employer should have been best positioned to rebut her claims, the court found there was enough dispute over material facts to preclude summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 22-cv-00458-MSM-AEM.

Judge: McElroy, M.

Attorneys: Maria Cedeno Cassinelli (Odu Law Firm) for Menwon Wongbay. Michael E. Coghlan (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith) for Balise Toyota of Warwick, LLC.

Companies: Balise T, LLC; Balise Toyota of Warwick, LLC

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims WageHour RhodeIslandNews