Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D.N.Y.: Manager’s two-week nicknaming of employee as ‘My N***er’ enough for trial on harassment, discharge claims, (Oct 17, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

“There is no opprobrium more demeaning when used by a white manager in the workplace towards a black employee than the “n” word,” noted the court.

A former Black sales assistant for a mortgage lender, who was fired ostensibly due to performance and attendance issues after a year on the job, and who had previously been referred to as “My N***er” by his white supervisor and coworkers for two weeks until he insisted they stop, survived summary judgment on his federal and state-law claims of race-based discrimination and hostile work environment. A federal district court noted that the remarks did not take place on “a loading dock where inappropriate language might be more common,” but rather at “a white-collar financial business in which the most basic kind of training arguably should have absolutely precluded any use of the ‘n’ word, especially by a manager.” However, his retaliation and age discrimination claims were dismissed as unsupported by the evidence (Cain v. United Mortgage Corp., No. 2:21-cv-03325-BMC-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2025)).

Racist nickname. In September 2017, the employer hired the employee as an unlicensed sales assistant at its branch in the Astoria neighborhood of Queens, New York. In February 2018, his branch manager began referring to him and a coworker by “nicknames,” and their colleagues joined in. The employee’s nicknames included “Bozo the Clown” (presumably referring to his age since he was bald), and using the following mantras followed by his last name “Old Man ” “My Coc**ne,” and “My N***er.” His coworker was called “Roy Ben Dover” and “Jew Boy.”

Objects to N-word. Although the employee understood that the nicknames were intended as workplace humor, he was offended. After about two weeks, he made a “blanket statement” in response to the N-word nickname by standing up and saying, “That’s not funny.” Though everybody laughed, they stopped using the slur.

No internal complaint. He did not dispute that he never made any formal discrimination complaints, though he was aware of the process for doing so as set forth in the employee handbook. He testified that he told the owner of a prior employer, whom he claimed had a business relationship with the current employer, about the “disrespectful” behavior and use of the N-word at the branch manager’s wedding, who allegedly responded that was “Manny being Manny” and walked away.

Part-time status. On April 13, 2018, the HR manager advised the employee he was being converted to part-time status since he failed to work 40-hour weeks, which was required for full-time status. As a result, he was no longer eligible for group benefits or paid time-off.

Terminated. On August 1, 2018, the branch manager counseled him about his poor attendance and performance. A month later, the manager noted that he was not assisting on any active files. The manager terminated him a month later, on October 15. In doing so, he failed to follow company policy requiring him to clear the termination through the HR manager. However, based on the employee’s time records, she did not attempt to rescind the termination.

Time records. The employee’s time records showed that he worked only 217 of the possible 265 workdays of his employment and, when he was terminated on October 15, had worked only four days that month. He claimed that he had worked more days but had stopped punching in after the branch manager told him around April, “You come in every morning, all you do is punch in.... I don’t want you punching in anymore.” However, he never told the HR manager about this alleged direction, nor did he protest having been put on part-time status.

Lawsuit. He sued, alleging a myriad of claims under Section 1981, Title VII, the ADEA, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the NYLL. At issue was the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

Race-based HWE. Allowing his hostile work environment claim to proceed to trial, the court noted that, “[t]here is no opprobrium more demeaning when used by a white manager in the workplace towards a black employee than the ‘n’ word.” Moreover, “the cases are rare when that particular epithet, used by a manager, is insufficient.” However, the court also acknowledged that the employee stated he had understood the nickname was used “as a badly misplaced effort to establish camaraderie,” and it also lasted only two weeks and ended when he asked for it to stop.

Even so, a reasonable jury could find that two weeks of such “an obviously unacceptable appellation constitutes” an actionable HWE. Indeed, in allowing a jury to decide whether the remarks were sufficiently severe or pervasive, the court noted that the employer “was not a loading dock where inappropriate language might be more common.” Instead, it “was a white-collar financial business with a Human Resources Department, in which the most basic kind of training arguably should have absolutely precluded any use of the ‘n’ word, especially by a manager like [the branch manager].”

Inference of race bias. His manager’s and coworkers’ use of the N-word nickname was also sufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination, and as such he established his prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework. However, he failed to show that much of the other evidence he relied upon was related to his race. For instance, the record did not suggest that his race factored into his loss of group benefits, the offensive but non-racial nicknames, or his firing without the HR manager’s approval. And while he also claimed he received lower quality leads than his non-Black peers, he failed to present evidence that the leads he received were actually of lower quality. Nor did he show that the purported comparators—a licensed sales manager and a senior licensed loan officer—were similarly situated to him.

Pretext. The court rejected the employer’s contention that the branch manager’s use of the N-word nickname was merely a stray remark but was also skeptical whether it would be enough for a jury to find pretext, especially since it appeared the manager hired him. “Although recognizing the waste of resources this might cause through an unnecessary trial and the arguably unfair increase in settlement leverage that it gives plaintiff, the law compels me to grant plaintiff a jury trial on it.”

Retaliation. However, the court tossed his retaliation claims since he failed to engage in protected activity. He made no complaints of racial discrimination to either the branch manager, the HR manager, or any other manager, despite being undisputedly aware of the reporting line for such complaints. Even if his statement to an apparent business associate at the branch manager’s wedding were sufficient, he could not show any causal connection since he failed to identify when the alleged complaint occurred, let alone whether a short temporal proximity existed. And even if he could, he could not show pretext based on temporal proximity alone.

No age bias. The employee also failed to point to any evidence supporting an inference of age bias. Accordingly, the court dismissed all claims relating to age discrimination.

The case is No. 2:21-cv-03325-BMC-AYS.

Judge: Cogan, B.

Attorneys: Tyrone Anthony Blackburn (T. A. Blackburn Law) for Michael Cain. Gregory Scot Lisi (Forchelli Curto Deegan Schwartz Mineo & Terrana) for United Mortgage Corp.

Companies: United Mortgage Corp.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims NewYorkNews