Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D.N.Y.: Longtime sheet metal worker’s race bias, hostile environment, retaliation claims dismissed, (Sep 17, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The worker’s rehiring after an alleged race-related incident undercut discriminatory and retaliatory inferences, while his complaints of “harassment” never clearly connected the challenged treatment to race.

A Black sheet metal worker who worked for a ventilation contractor or its predecessor for roughly 25 to 30 years failed to advance federal race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims arising from his November 2021 termination. Granting the employer summary judgment on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal district court in New York found that his rehiring shortly before the challenged termination weighed against an inference of racial bias. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state and city claims and dismissed them without prejudice (Ellis v. PB Ventilating Systems, Inc., No. 23-cv-04629 (NCM) (SDE) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2026)).

Workplace treatment. The employee was a union sheet metal worker who had worked for the ventilation contractor, or its predecessor, for 25 to 30 years. Apart from punctuality concerns for which he was never disciplined, he was not made aware of performance problems and had received compliments for his work.

Beginning in 2020, he believed a field supervisor treated him differently. He asserted that the supervisor ignored him, allowed less senior white and Hispanic foremen to run their own jobs while limiting his opportunities, took tools from his toolbox, and required him and other Black workers to remain after other employees were permitted to leave.

The employee complained to the company’s owner about several issues. Although he believed the treatment was race-based, he could not recall whether he used the word “discrimination,” but remembered describing the conduct as “harassment.”

A dispute also arose over Juneteenth in 2021. When the employee explained the holiday’s significance, the supervisor responded that he had “a comment about that” but would keep it to himself. Juneteenth was not then recognized as a holiday by the applicable collective bargaining agreement and employees of all races were required to work.

Rehiring. In October 2021, the employee became involved in a job-site confrontation with another worker that nearly turned violent when the coworker reached for a hammer. Both were laid off after the general contractor barred them from the site.

The company owner rehired the employee two weeks later. In November, however, the company terminated him and nine other sheet metal workers for a stated lack of work. The group included four white, three Black, and two Hispanic workers. The employee maintained that work remained available and that the company had recently hired two younger sheet metal workers.

He sued for race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state and city law, as well as age discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Same-actor inference. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court concluded that the November termination did not occur under circumstances supporting an inference of race discrimination. Relying on Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2000), the court explained that when the same person makes hiring and firing decisions, it is difficult to infer a discriminatory motivation inconsistent with the decision to hire. Here, the owner rehired the employee and terminated him within roughly two months.

Although that inference was not dispositive, the employee lacked other evidence sufficient to support discriminatory intent. His proposed comparators were inadequate because, although he testified that white and Hispanic foremen received greater opportunities and non-Black employees left earlier, he had punctuality issues and had previously been discharged following the workplace altercation. He did not establish that the proposed comparators had materially similar disciplinary histories, roles, or seniority.

His other allegations similarly fell short. He acknowledged receiving tools from coworkers’ toolboxes and identified no non-Black comparator whose tools were treated differently. Evidence that his Black work partner was not similarly ignored also undermined his claim that the supervisor’s dismissive treatment reflected racial bias.

Juneteenth remark. The supervisor’s Juneteenth comment did not support an inference that race caused the November termination. Even assuming it reflected racial hostility, the employer subsequently rehired the employee.

The court applied an “intervening positive action inference,” reasoning that a favorable employment decision after allegedly discriminatory conduct can weaken a claimed causal connection. Because the employee was rehired in October after the June comment, the court found it “would not make sense” to conclude that the alleged hostility caused his November discharge when it had not prevented his rehiring.

Hostile environment. The hostile work environment claim also failed. Citing Richardson v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 180 F.3d 426 (2d Cir. 1999), the court explained that isolated, mild race-related remarks cannot establish an objectively hostile workplace.

The Juneteenth comment was the only explicitly race-related statement. Although it suggested an unspoken disagreement with a holiday celebrating the emancipation of Black people, it did not disparage Black people or invoke a racist stereotype, and there was no evidence it was repeated. Without evidence connecting the employee’s other workplace difficulties to race, the statement could not establish severe or pervasive race-based harassment.

Vagueness of complaints. The retaliation claim was dismissed because the employee did not establish that the employer knew he was opposing race discrimination.

Relying on Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Development Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998), the court explained that a complaint must reasonably communicate that the challenged conduct involves unlawful discrimination. General complaints of unfair treatment are insufficient.

The employee complained about receiving fewer opportunities, missing equipment, and different treatment. But although he recalled using “harassment,” he could not say whether he used “discrimination” and did not testify that he identified race as the reason for the treatment. The owner testified that he did not understand the complaints as alleging race discrimination.

Even assuming the Juneteenth complaint sufficiently conveyed a race-related objection, causation was lacking because the company rehired him after that complaint. The favorable intervening action broke the asserted causal connection to his later termination.

State claims dismissed. Having resolved all federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. It noted unresolved questions concerning the recently amended NYSHRL, including whether its standard is now coextensive with the NYCHRL or occupies a middle ground between federal and city law.

Accordingly, the employer obtained summary judgment on all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, while the remaining state and city claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The case is No. 23-cv-04629 (NCM) (SDE).

Judge: Merle, N.

Attorneys: Joshua Mathew Friedman (Phillips & Associates) for Peter Ellis. Joseph Anci (Jackson Lewis) for PB Ventilating Systems, Inc.

Companies: PB Ventilating Systems, Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge NewYorkNews