Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D.N.Y.: White school psychologist, referred to as a ‘Karen,’ cannot advance bias claim, (Oct 22, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D

According to the school psychologist, she considered the term to be a derogatory term for white women.

A school secretary’s reference to a white psychologist as a “Karen” prior to a meeting with an assistant principal, together with the assistant principal’s aggressive behavior toward the psychologist at the meeting, was not enough to constitute adverse employment action, a federal court in New York held, granting summary judgment against the psychologist’s Title VII race discrimination claim. Nor was the secretary’s alleged mocking of the hearing-impaired psychologist during the meeting enough to support her ADA disability discrimination claim, said the court, granting summary judgment against that claim as well. The psychologist’s retaliation and hostile work environment claims also failed on summary judgment (D’Aiello v. Freeport High Schools, No. 23-cv-00577 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2026)).

Karen 1 and Karen 2. In November 2021, the school psychologist and a guidance counselor went to the assistant principal’s office to discuss a student. As they were entering the office, his secretary stated, “Here comes Karen 1 and Karen 2,” which the psychologist believed to be a derogatory term for white women. After both women reported the comment, the principal arranged for a meeting with the women, the assistant principal, the secretary, and others.

At the November 19 meeting, the psychologist, who claimed she had been diagnosed with a hearing impairment at some prior point, alleged that the secretary mimicked her way of speaking and her mannerisms. When she asked the secretary to stop, she did. The secretary also apologized for the “Karen” comment. She then left the meeting.

Not fairyland. During a discussion of the term “Karen” by the remaining parties, the assistant principal stated that the term was not grounded in race but rather was pejorative and disrespectful. Disagreeing, the head of the teachers’ union said the term was sexist, mean, and unprofessional, and that it could be perceived as racist. She also called the assistant principal a misogynist and arrogant. In response, he stated that he was a scholar on racism and that the union head “only had opinions but he had facts.” The meeting devolved from there and, at some point, the assistant principal told the psychologist, “This is not fairyland... this is Freeport.”

Investigation. After the meeting, the principal initiated an investigation into the “Karen” comment. In April 2022, she issued a memorandum finding that the November 19 meeting had “spiraled out of control” without effective moderation. Both the psychologist and the guidance counselor filed internal complaints. A second investigation found the secretary had apologized, and while the assistant principal’s conduct during the meeting was unprofessional, it did not rise to the level of misconduct. The assistant principal was issued a counseling memo.

Other incidents. During a subsequent lockdown drill in the 2023-2024 school year, the assistant principal checked the psychologist’s door, found it unlocked, and told her to lock it. The psychologist claimed his entry into her office was “discomforting” and “triggered feelings of trauma.” She also claimed that at some point in 2024, she went to the office to talk to the principal and when she entered through a side door, she saw all the assistant principals having cake for someone’s retirement. The assistant principal, she alleged, told her in a verbally aggressive manner that she “walked in the wrong door,” which caused her to panic.

Resignation. In November 2024, after the assistant principal had resigned, the psychologist, submitted a resignation letter stating that she would “be accepting a position in the DOE to support my mental health, be closer to home and accommodate my familial needs.” A month later, she submitted a second resignation letter referencing, among other things, the “Karen” comment and the November 19 meeting.

Adverse employment actions. In support of her race discrimination claims, the psychologist pointed to several purportedly adverse acts, including the “Karen,” “fairyland,” and “wrong door” comments, the assistant principal’s allegedly aggressive behavior, the school’s alleged fostering of an environment in which discrimination could occur, and its alleged favoring of non-white employees during the investigation. Rejecting her contention that the comments, together with the assistant principal’s allegedly aggressive behavior, were adverse actions, the court found that, though the remarks may have been unpleasant, the psychologist suffered no reduction in pay, benefits, title, responsibilities, career prospects, or any other identifiable term or condition of her employment.

As to the assistant principal entering her office during the lockdown drill and his comment that she had gone through the wrong door, these, said the court, were “precisely the type of ‘mere inconveniences’ (if they can even be called that) that are not actionable under Title VII.”

Regarding her contention that the school discriminatorily applied its anti-discrimination/anti-harassment policy and failed to adequately investigate her claims, the court found that this was speculative. Further, following the November 19 meeting, the school held at least four additional meetings to address the psychologist’s concerns, and multiple officials conducted internal investigations into the complained-of behavior. In sum, said the court, no reasonable jury could find that any of the cited incidents rose to the level of an adverse employment action. Thus, the court granted summary judgment against her race discrimination claim.

Disability discrimination. In support of her ADA disability discrimination claim, the psychologist alleged that she suffered an adverse action when she was “mimick[ed], mock[ed], and ridicule[d] for her hearing impairment” by the secretary and others. But the secretary’s mocking of her during the November 19 meeting stopped after the psychologist asked her to stop, and there was no evidence it ever happened again. And though she testified that “[t]here’s been a lot of mocking, like, oh, maybe [I] didn’t hear it. There is jokes made. I’m like the butt end of a joke,” she did not identify any specific incidents other than the secretary’s conduct at the meeting, and that single incident did not constitute an actionable adverse action, said the court, granting summary judgment against this claim as well.

Retaliation claims. Nor could she show, for purposes of her ADA and Title VII retaliation claims, that she was subjected to materially adverse action, said the court. Though she claimed the district’s failure to properly investigate her discrimination complaint constituted retaliation for bringing that complaint, the court again found the undisputed facts did not support this. There was simply no evidence to suggest any failure to investigate or respond to any of her complaints.

She also pointed to the principal’s alleged comment to the union head that if the union head went after the assistant principal, the principal would go after the psychologist. But here, said the court, it appeared that the psychologist only learned about this alleged threat during discovery. Moreover, she filed discrimination complaints and the instant lawsuit, and the principal never took any disciplinary action against her. At best, said the court, she alleged an isolated threat that was never carried out and was never even communicated to her by the principal. Thus, these claims also failed on summary judgment.

Hostile work environment. Turning finally to her hostile work environment claim, the court noted that she repeated the same factual allegations from her discrimination and retaliation claims. Even assuming the “Karen” and “fairyland” comments had to do with race, they were isolated, and there was no evidence of any further discriminatory comments directed at her from the secretary, the assistant principal, or anyone else.

Likewise, the secretary’s mocking of her was isolated to the November 19 meeting, and there was no evidence the psychologist had any contact with her after that meeting. Nor did she have much contact with the assistant principal after the meeting other than the lockdown drill incident and the “wrong door” comment, which, the court observed, was not the kind of pervasive conduct required to support a hostile work environment claim. In short, said the court, the complained-of conduct was not sufficiently severe to alter the conditions of her employment and therefore could not support a hostile work environment claim.

The case is No. 23-cv-00577 (JMA) (SIL).

Judge: Azrack, J.

Attorneys: Vincent Miletti (Law Offices of Vincent Miletti) for Elizabeth D'Aiello. Adam I. Kleinberg (Guercio & Guercio) for Freeport High Schools, The Freeport School District, Aaron Johnson, Gisselle Campbell-Ham, Kishore Kuncham, and Benjamin Roberts.

Companies: Freeport High Schools; The Freeport School District

MainStory: TopStory RaceDiscrimination Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation UnionsMembers NewYorkNews GCNNews