Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ill.: Black nurse who claimed she was more frequently assigned disliked task can’t advance race-based claims, (Sep 9, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry. J.D.

Assigning an employee more frequently to a disliked task that remains within her ordinary duties does not necessarily constitute actionable discrimination.

An African-American registered nurse sued the healthcare provider where she worked as a contractor alleging race discrimination and hostile work environment and an Illinois federal court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that assigning an employee more frequently to a disliked task that remains within her ordinary duties does not necessarily constitute actionable discrimination. And even assuming the assignments were sufficiently adverse, the nurse lacked evidence permitting a reasonable jury to conclude that race was a cause. Moreover, a single incident of offensive name-calling under these circumstances did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile environment (Robinson v. Illinois Department of Human Services dba Jack Marley Developmental Center, No. 3:24 C 50062 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2026)).

The RN was employed by temporary staffing agency Favorite Healthcare Staffing and was assigned to work at the Illinois Department of Human Services’ (IDHS) Jack Mabley Developmental Center (JMDC) in Dixon, Illinois, from April through September 2023. JMDC provides care to residents with developmental disabilities, some of whom require continuous one-on-one (1:1) medical supervision by a healthcare provider who remains within arm’s reach. Although Favorite was the RN’s employer of record, IDHS selected agency nurses who could work at its facilities, established their schedules, supervised their daily work, and determined their assignments.

Undesirable assignments. She alleged that IDHS discriminated against her by repeatedly assigning her to undesirable 1:1 supervision duties more frequently than similarly situated white nurses. Official schedules showed that she received 1:1 assignments during approximately 33 percent of her shifts, comparable to some white agency nurses; she maintained, however, that those records did not accurately reflect frequent day-of changes made by supervising nurses. She also claimed she was denied breaks and repeatedly assigned to dangerous patients and asserted that prolonged sitting during 1:1 assignments caused significant knee pain and ultimately required medical treatment, although she submitted no medical records supporting the alleged injury.

Coworkers’ conduct. The RN additionally alleged racial harassment by coworkers. In September 2023, she texted the JMDC Director of Nursing complaining of “strife,” condescending attitudes, harassment, and two employees who were disrespectful and demeaning. The message did not identify race as the reason for the treatment, although the RN later testified that she verbally told supervisors she was being targeted because she was Black, and also testified that she believed she heard a coworker refer to her using a racialized insult. The nursing director promptly offered to meet with her, subsequently adjusted her assignments to avoid the area about which she complained, and contacted the supervisor of the employees identified in her complaint.

When her three-month JMDC assignment was eligible for renewal, the RN declined to renew despite being offered a day shift that could reduce her 1:1 assignments. She remained eligible for other favorite assignments but ultimately declined further work. She then sued IDHS for race discrimination and hostile work environment, asserting that the conditions also amounted to constructive discharge. IDHS moved for summary judgment.

Race discrimination claim. The court first questioned whether repeated 1:1 assignments constituted an adverse employment action at all, noting that while case precedent established that a discriminatory transfer need not cause significant harm to violate Title VII, the RN here had not been transferred or assigned duties outside her position. Rather, 1:1 supervision was a core nursing responsibility at JMDC that could be assigned to any nurse, including the Director of Nursing. Assigning an employee more frequently to a disliked task that remains within her ordinary duties does not necessarily constitute actionable discrimination, the court noted.

Further, even assuming the assignments were sufficiently adverse, the RN lacked evidence permitting a reasonable jury to conclude that race was a cause. IDHS explained that agency nurses were ordinarily assigned to 1:1 supervision before unionized IDHS nurses, and the RN did not meaningfully dispute that policy.

More importantly, although she asserted that white agency nurses were treated more favorably, the evidence showed that comparable white nurses received 1:1 assignments at approximately the same rate, the court held, and the RN’s subjective belief that unrecorded schedule changes disproportionately burdened her was insufficient to establish discriminatory treatment. Similarly, she presented no corroborating evidence that white nurses received breaks when she did not, and she supplied no medical evidence connecting the alleged denial of breaks or prolonged sitting to her knee injuries.

Hostile work environment claim. As to her hostile work environment claim, her allegations concerning undesirable assignments, denied breaks, and dangerous patients did not establish a racial connection, the court held, and her more generalized claims that coworkers singled her out, degraded her, laughed at her, or talked about her were too vague and conclusory. Although the court considered her testimony that she believed a coworker used a racialized insult, a single incident of offensive name-calling under these circumstances did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile environment.

Even assuming she experienced actionable coworker harassment, IDHS could be liable only if it was negligent in discovering or remedying it, the court explained. Here, the Director of Nursing promptly responded to the RN’s complaint, met with her, altered her assignments, and contacted the appropriate supervisor. Because no reasonable jury could find IDHS’s response negligent, the hostile environment claim failed and the RN’s voluntary decision not to renew her JMDC assignment three weeks later likewise could not support constructive discharge.

The case is No. 3:24-C-50062.

Judge: Pallmeyer, R.

Attorneys: Mohammed Omar Badwan (Sulaiman Law Group) for Lakeesha Robinson. David M. Caves, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, for Illinois Department of Human Services dba Jack Mabley Developmental Center.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees IllinoisNews