Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ala.: White nonprofit executive director fired due to performance, not race, (Oct 15, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

A consulting firm hired to help develop the nonprofit’s strategic plan reported that she had “poor people skills,” was late to meetings, was “not a relationship builder,” and was lacking in “internal and external communications.”

A nonprofit corporation that terminated its white female executive director ostensibly for performance deficiencies and subsequently hired a Black male CEO who took over at least some of her prior duties, won’t face trial on her Title VII and Section 1981 claims of race discrimination. Though she made her prima facie showing that she was replaced by someone outside of her protected class, she failed to present evidence of pretext, and the record was clear that the board was dissatisfied with her performance over a period of several months preceding its vote to terminate her employment and had directly addressed those shortcomings with her (Parker v. Village of Promise, No. 5:23-cv-1237-CLS (N.D. Ala. Oct. 9, 2025)).

In March 2020, the employer hired the employee to serve as its executive director. The employer is an Alabama nonprofit corporation that was founded in 2011, and it operated a family advancement center that assists families in overcoming generational poverty through education.

Parent complaint. In March 2021, the parent of a child who attended one of the employer’s programs wrote to the board chairperson a “Statement of Concern,” in which the parent complained that the employee had treated her with disrespect. The chairperson forwarded the complaint to the board members and the employee, after which she had multiple follow-up communications with the chairperson and the nonprofit’s cofounder.

Mid-year discussion. Later that same month, the chairperson met with the employee for a “mid-year discussion.” He summarized the meeting in an email message dated March 25, which reflected both positive and negative feedback. She responded with a lengthy email in which she expressed her disappointment that her accomplishments were not appropriately recognized.

Audit planned. In July 2021, the employer engaged a consulting group to evaluate and advise the organization for strategic planning. In an email, the chairperson explained that the process would include interviews with the employee, board members, senior leadership, and key stakeholders. Afterwards, virtual meetings would be held to determine strategies and responsibilities for implementing the approach. Ultimately, the group would emerge with a strategic plan.

Annual review. Meanwhile, the employee received an annual review which was mostly positive but also critical on some points. For example, while the review detailed her significant accomplishments, it also provided suggestions for her improvement in the areas of “critical listening and communication,” “staffing,” and “culture of trust and transparency.”

Leaders discuss concerns. On September 8, a board member sent an email to the employee regarding the details of the upcoming audit. The employee then sent an email to the new Board chairperson complaining about the plan. The new chairperson responded and also forwarded copies of all of the messages to her predecessor. He responded by voicing his “continued concerns” with the employee’s “deteriorating” relationship with the board. The new chairperson agreed that she “has trouble in receiving suggestions, observations, or feedback,” which were “too often taken as personal criticisms of her leadership and this stifles the conversation.”

Audit report. The consulting firm presented its audit report to the board on October 13, and its observations regarding the employee’s performance included both positive remarks concerning the operational aspects of the job and negative remarks concerning her leadership and communications. The firm ultimately recommended that the executive directorship be split into two positions—a CEO who would be the face of the agency and a COO responsible for operations.

Terminated. On December 9, the board met and voted to terminate the employee. Afterwards, the employer placed a white male into to the role of interim executive director. Six months later, he was replaced by a Black male the employer hired as its CEO.

Black male “replacement.” At the outset, the court rejected the employer’s contention that the employee failed to establish her prima facie case under the McDonnellDouglas burden-shifting framework since she was not “replaced” by the Black male hired as CEO. The court emphasized that “a large logical leap is not required” to conclude that the new CEO, who assumed the nonprofit’s top administrative position, performed at least some of the same job duties that the employee had performed as executive director.

Non-discriminatory reason. However, the employee failed to refute the employer’s contention that the board voted to terminate her due to dissatisfaction with her performance. For instance, in March, the then-chairperson identified as part of their “mid-year discussion” areas where her performance could improve, including in the areas of critical listening, communication, and timeliness. Her annual review, while largely positive, also suggested that there was room for her to improve her performance in the areas of “critical listening and communication,” “staffing,” and developing a “culture of trust and transparency.”

Then in October, the independent consultant engaged to assist in developing a strategic plan reported to the board—based upon its interviews with leadership, staff, and other stakeholders—that the employee had “poor people skills,” was late to meetings, missed opportunities to “tell the [nonprofit’s] story,” was “not a relationship builder,” and that “internal and external communications [were] lacking.”

Additionally, the record contained evidence that her interactions with the board and others were contentious. This included a parent’s complaint that she was disrespectful and emails among board members and the employee reflecting concerns about her interactions with them, staff, and the public. The board addressed those issues with her, and terminated after concluding their concerns were not corrected to its satisfaction.

No pretext. The court rejected her argument that pretext could be inferred from the employer’s inconsistencies in position statement to the EEOC; namely, that it omitted the fact that a Black male had been hired as CEO, and instead only referred to its retention of the white interim executive director. Even if this were an “inconsistency,” it did not cast doubt on the credibility of the employer’s stated reasons for her termination.

The court was similarly unpersuaded by her contention that pretext could inferred from the “after the fact” justifications for her termination since she had initially only been told that she was “not a good fit.” While she may not have been told all of the reasons she was being let go, the record was clear that the board was dissatisfied with her performance over a period of several months preceding her termination and had directly addressed with her the shortcomings in her performance.

The case is No. 5:23-cv-1237-CLS.

Judge: Smith, C.

Attorneys: Philip M. DeFatta (DeFatta Law Firm) for Elizabeth Parker. Benjamin R. Little (Dentons Sirote) for Village of Promise Inc.

Companies: Village of Promise Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge AlabamaNews