Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Pa.: Nursing director, fired after clashing with staff, fails to show racial bias, (Jul 31, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

She never once raised a complaint of race-based discrimination during her tenure and the grievances she did file omitted any reference to race.

Granting summary judgment against the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 racial discrimination claim brought by a former director of nursing for several community health centers, a federal district court in Pennsylvania found that the director had failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and, even if she had, she could adduce no evidence that the employer’s proffered reason for its decision was pretextual. The director had a divisive leadership style that created tension among staff members, leading the employer to conclude that she was “not a good fit for the position.” The court acknowledged that while such a given reason by an employer can occasionally mask discriminatory motives, there was no evidence suggesting the phrase was used as a proxy for race (Turner v. Philadelphia FIGHT, No. 2:24-cv-04294 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2025)).

The plaintiff, an African-American woman, was hired as the director of nursing by Philadelphia FIGHT on December 4, 2023. The employer operates several community health centers and the director was hired to oversee four of those centers.

Concerns. According to the employer, leadership began to raise concerns over the director shortly after her hire, including her handling of clinic workflows and her failure to be “present” during meetings.

Unilateral hiring practices. In addition to these concerns, leadership also took issue with the director’s inappropriate, unilateral hiring practices. In early 2024, she hired two managers without posting the positions or consulting with leadership. She also hired a former student, a Black man, as an RN and did not share his resume with leadership until after his start date.

Grievances. During the director’s tenure, she filed four grievances, none of which alleged race-based discrimination. One concerned a complaint from anonymous sources about employees smoking marijuana during work hours, one alleged a hostile work environment without mentioning race, and a third alleged hostility and obstruction on the part of staff, again sans any allegations of racial bias.

The fourth grievance arose from a March 25, 2024, incident wherein an employee submitted an incident report that the director had bumped shoulders with the employee. The director responded by submitting a grievance complaining of a hostile work environment.

Meeting. On February 1, 2024, leadership met with the director to address the concerns that had arisen since her employment. One individual at the meeting referred to the RN hired by the director as “weird, cocky and inexperienced,” and also stated that he was “not a good fit,” an argument the director considered to be a “classic racist argument.”

After this meeting, the chief medical officer resigned. According to the director, her resignation email cited the hostility the director had been receiving from leadership as a factor in her decision. However, the chief medical officer never referenced any race-related concerns in her email.

Restructuring. The chief medical officer’s replacement raised similar concerns regarding the director’s employment. He subsequently made the decision to restructure the clinics so that the director would no longer supervise staff at one clinic where she had particularly contentious relationships. The director then sent an email to the entire nursing staff stating she had been removed from this particular clinic.

Following this email, it was recommended that the director be suspended pending investigation into the previously mentioned grievances she had filed.

Termination. On February 27, 2024, the chief medical officer held an emergency meeting with staff to discuss the director’s email concerning her removal of oversight from one of the clinics. During the meeting, one participant described the director’s tenure as “a pattern of divisive leadership, misrepresentation, and mistreatment of long-standing staff.”

The director’s employment was terminated on April 5, 2024, and she later filed this action. The chief medical officer testified in his deposition to the director’s alleged disruption to staff and also stated that she was “not a good fit” for the position.

Prima facie case. Applying the burden shifting framework established by McDonnell Douglas, the court found the first three elements of the director’s prima facie case to be undisputed: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; and (3) had suffered an adverse employment action. However, the fourth element—whether the record could support an inference of discrimination—was in dispute.

Here, the director did not introduce any evidence of comparators, and while she pointed to various workplace events and dynamics that she believed suggested racial animus, none of the evidence she submitted established a causal connection between her race and her termination, observed the court. Her only evidence of race discrimination consisted solely of her own assertions that she was terminated because she was Black, said the court, and because there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the circumstances that support an inference of discrimination, the director’s prima facie case failed as a matter of law.

White leadership. In an effort to demonstrate an inference of racial animus, the director first pointed to the fact that the medical leadership at the employer consisted entirely of white people. However, this racial composition on its own was too general to be relevant or useful in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, explained the court.

Hostility. Next, the director pointed to the alleged “hostility and obstruction” from leadership she experienced after, among other things, making unilateral hiring decisions, as evidence of racial bias. The court was not moved because nothing in the record suggested the alleged hostility was motivated by race. The comment by one leader about the RN hired by the director as being “weird, cocky, and inexperienced” could not carry the day, as one instance of behavior not directed towards the director made by a non-decisionmaker should not be given much weight, said the court.

Suspension. Finally, the director’s assertion that racial animus was behind the suggestion that she be suspended while her grievances were investigated could not persuade the court. “Absent any indication that race played a role in the recommendation, this claim amounts to mere speculation and does not support an inference of discrimination,” said the court.

Pretext. While the failure to establish a prima facie case alone would warrant summary judgment, the court nonetheless proceeded to the remaining steps under the McDonnell Douglas framework. According to the employer, the director was terminated based on legitimate concerns regarding her suitability for the position during her four-month tenure.

Shifting the burden back to the director to show that this legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual, she again pointed to the same evidence she relied on in an attempt to make her prima facie case, pointing to alleged hostility and the “classic racist argument” that both she and the RN she had hired were “not a good fit.”

These assertions, explained the court, were insufficient to prove pretext. At bottom, such arguments invited the court to second-guess the employer’s business judgment in terminating an employee that it considered to be unfit.

“Not a good fit.” As to the employee’s assertion that being told one is “not a good fit” is a “classic racist argument,” the court acknowledged that such phraseology can occasionally mask discriminatory motives. However, there was no evidence of discriminatory motives in this instance, observed the court. The director proffered no evidence suggesting the phrase was used as a proxy for race. In contrast, the record reflected that concerns about her not being a good fit were rooted in specific, nondiscriminatory critiques of her leadership style and management skills.

Failing to find evidence that the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual, the court granted summary judgment against the director’s claim.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-04294.

Judge: Weilheimer, G.

Attorneys: Robert T. Vance, Jr. (Law Offices of Robert T. Vance Jr.) for Tiffany Turner. Ivo Becica (Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel) for Philadelphia FIGHT.

Companies: Philadelphia FIGHT

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge PennsylvaniaNews