Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D.N.Y.: Airport lounge manager, fired for failing to report sexual harassment incident, cannot advance claims, (May 5, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

“The paucity of racial overtones leads the Court to conclude that no reasonable jury could find that defendants discriminated or retaliated against her because of her race.”

Granting Sodexo’s motion for summary judgment against the racial discrimination and retaliation claims asserted by a former airport lounge operations manager, a federal district court in New York noted that although the employee had pointed to plenty of evidence suggesting conflict, she failed to tie any of it into racial animus. Two of her subordinates, on two occasions, had allegedly referred to her as “Blackie,” and “Black Cake,” but that ended after the employee complained to HR. Aside from that, she asserted that a subordinate had yelled at her and she was reassigned to a less desirable shift, which was insufficient to raise a jury question on race-based discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII (Simplice v. SodexoMagic, LLC, No. 24-cv-7818 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2026)).

The employee in this case is a Black woman who was hired in July 2022 as a prep cook at the Delta Airlines Sky Lounge at JFK Airport.

Promotion. Within a couple of months of her employment, the general manager suggested that she apply for an open “Operations Manager” position at the lounge. The employee did so and assumed her new role in October 2022.

During the employee’s first year as operations manager, several staff members complained about her performance, accusing her of showing up late, not spending enough time on the floor, and not answering phone calls. This was reflected in her performance review, where she was rated as making a “moderate contribution.”

PIP. In September 2023, the employee was placed on a PIP, which she successfully completed. For the 2023-2024 years, she received an overall performance evaluation score of 2.25 out of 4.0.

Verbal abuse. According to the employee, one of her subordinates was verbally abusive towards her, getting in her face and causing her to fear for her personal safety. In response, the general manager changed staffing assignments.

Nicknames. In December 2023, the employee raised concerns to HR that other employees had begun referring to her as “Sister,” “Blackie,” and “Black Cake.” An investigation revealed that one worker had called the employee “Sister” multiple times, but had attributed the nickname in the context of other employees referring to the general manager as “papa,” a term the employee used herself to refer to the general manager. Following the investigation, HR counseled against the use of nicknames and the behavior ceased.

Schedule change. Initially, the employee was assigned to work the early morning shift. However, after others complained about her performance, she was moved to the afternoon shift. As a result of this change, she could no longer pick her children up from school and attend religious services on Sunday. Ultimately, she returned to working primarily the early morning shift.

Vacation request. In December 2023, the employee requested vacation leave between December 20 and January 4. She was eventually granted time off from December 27 through December 31. She complained that this was not enough.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit in November 2024 asserting claims for racial discrimination in violation of Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, as well as a hostile work environment claim in violation of Title VII, and retaliation claims under Title VII and Section 1981.

Termination. In June 2025, the employer received word of a third-party complaint of sexual harassment. The employee admitted that around a month earlier, she had observed inappropriate physical conduct by a male worker toward a female worker, but she had failed to report the incident. She was terminated for failure to meet critical managerial expectations. She then amended her complaint to include termination as an adverse employment action in her retaliation claims.

No discriminatory intent. First, the court addressed the employee’s Title VII discrimination claim. The court found that an in-depth analysis was not necessary as the employee had failed to raise an inference of discriminatory intent.

According to the employee, the general manager treated East Indian and Guyanese employees more favorably than her due to her race, raising an indirect inference of discrimination. However, she failed to show that she was similarly situated to these proffered comparators, acknowledging that those workers were employed in different roles and all answered to her in her role as operations manager.

No pretext. Even assuming the employee could raise an inference of discrimination sufficient to establish her prima facie case, the court found she could point to no evidence the employer’s actions were pretextual.

The decision to change her shift assignment was based on her performance scores and feedback, her vacation request was partly denied to account for staffing needs during the height of travel season, and she was issued a PIP because of her inability to manage her staff.

In response, the employee merely concluded that these proffered reasons were pretextual, which was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

HWE. Turning to her hostile work environment claim, the employee pointed to the nicknames used by other workers and the fact that one employee had yelled and cursed at her while invading her physical space.

Here, the court found that the use of “Blackie” and “Black Cake” might have some relation to the employee’s race, but the use of those nicknames did not rise to the severe or pervasive level necessary to sustain a claim for a hostile work environment. The employee admitted that these nicknames were only used twice, by two employees, and failed to show how their use interfered with her work performance. Moreover, she pointed to an alternative theory for the use of the nicknames—the workers were unhappy she was promoted before them, given their seniority. As such, the court found that even though the use of the nicknames may have been offensive, they could not form a basis for this claim.

Similarly, the use of “Sister” did not rise to the requisite severe or pervasive level. Unlike the other two nicknames, the employee did not argue that this was one of the slurs used against her, and an employer investigation revealed that the name was used in the context of referring to the general manager as “papa,” a term of endearment. Given these undisputed facts coupled with the lack of connection between the use of “Sister” to her race, the employee could not show that its use created an environment a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.

As to the incident where a subordinate yelled at her, she did not attempt to attribute any of this behavior to race. She conceded that the subordinate had never used a racial term toward her and had interpersonal issues with other employees who were not Black.

Liability. In addition to the above, the court explained that the hostile work environment claim also fails because the employer was not liable for the conduct of its nonsupervisory employees. The employer provided an avenue of complaint, encouraging employees to report incidents of discrimination, an avenue the employee took advantage of when she complained of the use of nicknames. Further, the employer took remedial action upon investigating the employee’s complaint.

Retaliation. Next, the court considered the employee’s claim for retaliation. She argued that when she complained about the use of nicknames and when she filed this action, she was retaliated against by being terminated. It was undisputed that these two actions constituted protected activity and that the termination was an adverse employment action. However, the employer contended that the claim failed for lack of causation.

Because the employee failed to point to any direct evidence of retaliation, the court relied on indirect evidence. The court noted that the employee was fired around a year-and-a-half after complaining of the nicknames and seven months after commencing this action. The court found this was too long of a time to establish causation and the employee could not point to any other evidence of retaliatory animus.

And again, even assuming the employee could establish causation, her claim would fail as she could not point to evidence showing the employer’s legitimate, proffered reasons were pretextual. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the employer was also granted as to this claim.

State-law claims. Finally, the court considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the employee’s state-law claims. The court noted that pursuant to 2019 amendments, NYSHRL claims must now be considered under an “as of yet unclear” (but lower than Title VII) standard.

Given the “novelty” of a new standard for such claims, the court felt it best to leave such determinations to a New York court, dismissing these claims without prejudice to refile in state court.

The case is No. 24-cv-7818 (BMC).

Judge: Cogan, B.

Attorneys: Adrian A. Ellis (Law Offices of Adrian A. Ellis) for Veronica Simplice. Jessica Giambrone Palmese (Epstein Becker & Green) for SodexoMagic, LLC, Sodexo, Inc., and SDH Services West, LLC.

Companies: SodexoMagic, LLC; Sodexo, Inc.; SDH Services West, LLC

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims NewYorkNews