Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ill.: Employee called ‘hey, you Indian’ and ‘red dot’ Indian by supervisor loses on summary judgment, (Feb 20, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The supervisor behaved offensively and belligerently toward employees irrespective of race, the court explained, and his evidence fell short of demonstrating pervasive or severe harassment.

An Indian employee’s Section 1981 hostile work environment claim failed to survive summary judgment before a federal district court in Illinois. The employee claimed that his employer and its corporate president allowed his supervisor to racially harass him. However, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the work environment was objectively hostile or that the harassment was “severe or pervasive.” The racial harassment the employee faced was not severe, said the court, let alone severe enough to have altered the conditions of his employment under the law (Papa v. Green, No. 1:23-cv-01221 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2026)).

Of Indian descent, the employee served as the Director of Materials for an Illinois medical center. His supervisor served at least for a time as the center’s Chief Financial Officer. The employee’s main interactions with his supervisor occurred in daily finance meetings. Several directors from other departments also attended these meetings. On rare occasions, the two would have one-on-one meetings regarding the organization’s finances.

According to the employee, the supervisor used unprofessional and profane language, and he acted aggressively and short-temperedly in the workplace. He behaved this way around the employee and other employees of varying races. The employee claimed that the supervisor began behaving this way around him early in his employment and he alleged the supervisor directed racial remarks at him on approximately 25 to 30 occasions.

Specific comments. For example, the supervisor would pass him in the hallway and greet him by saying statements such as “hey, you Hindu” or “hey, you Indian.” When the employee would walk in the halls with a co-worker of Pakistani descent, the supervisor would greet both men based upon their ethnicities or assumed religions, such as saying “hey, you Pakastani” or “hey you, Muslim.” Additionally, in one meeting where only the supervisor and employee were present, the supervisor referred to the employee as a “red dot” Indian. These incidents comprised the sum total of the alleged discrimination; the employee identified no other harassment and no one else complained about any racial remarks allegedly made by the supervisor about the employee outside of the employee’s presence.

President’s (lack of) knowledge. The medical center’s corporate president and 50 percent owner relied upon other corporate officers, including the supervisor, to run the hospital. The employee never informed the corporate president personally of the supervisor’s harassment and the employee made no assertion that the corporate president condoned, approved of, or acquiesced in the supervisor’s comments. Additionally, the corporate president knew nothing of the supervisor’s alleged racial comments.

HR complaint. At all relevant times, the medical center observed an Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policy, which prohibited racial discrimination. The policy included an investigations protocol to be followed when the center received a complaint of racial harassment. The employee claimed he reported the supervisor’s comments to an HR official in late 2019, which should have sufficed to trigger the center’s investigations protocol. But the HR official denied that the employee ever filed a report, and the center had no record of any complaint.

RIF. The medical center eliminated the employee’s position in 2020 in a reduction in force. Three people, including the supervisor, participated in the decision to eliminate the position.

The employee sued the medical center and its corporate president, claiming that they violated 42 U.S.C. §1981, by allowing the supervisor to harass him and that the corporate president acquiesced to the supervisor’s harassment. The medical center and corporate president jointly moved for summary judgment.

HWE claim. To establish a hostile work environment, the employee must first prove offensiveness. Offensiveness includes both the employee’s subjective view of the workplace and a reasonable person’s perspective of the environment. Here, the employee’s statements that he felt stressed and belittled and uncomfortable in his work environment satisfied the element of subjective offensiveness. But the supervisor’s conduct fell short of satisfying the objective element, said the court; the record evidence does not describe an objectively hostile work environment under the law.

The record showed that, over the course of 15 months, the supervisor greeted the employee approximately 30 times in an off-color manner that implicated the employee’s ethnicity. But most of the comments were not made in front of others; none were aggressive or threatening; and the majority were not even derogatory. Section 1981 does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace, the court explained, and no reasonable person would consider the supervisor’s occasional, crass comments to be legally intolerable under controlling precedent.

Offensive irrespective of race. Moreover, the record also showed that the supervisor behaved offensively and belligerently toward employees irrespective of race, and to win on his claim, the employee would have to show that the supervisor harassed him because of his race. The record, however, failed to show that the supervisor’s conduct toward the employee had anything to do with racial animus. Therefore, said the court, no reasonable jury could find that the supervisor “harassed” the employee because of his race.

Termination. The employee also argued that the supervisor was instrumental in his firing and claimed his termination constituted evidence of racial harassment. But the record contained no evidence to support this theory. The employee did not claim, for example, that the supervisor got him fired for complaining about the supervisor’s harassment, nor did he claim that his firing had anything to do with his race. Speculation alone cannot create a dispute of material fact, said the court.

In sum, the court concluded that “no reasonable jury could find that the environment was objectively hostile.”

Evidence fell “far short.” Additionally, the court noted that there is no strict formula for determining when harassment becomes actionable, and no specific number of offensive comments needed to automatically trigger liability. Even one act or statement may suffice if it is sufficiently egregious. Here, however, given the nature and relative infrequency of the supervisor’s statements, a reasonable jury could not find that the harassment was severe or pervasive. For example, despite the supervisor’s rude remarks, the employee remained able to work normally. He never feared for his safety and never felt threatened. More is required to show a hostile work environment, said the court. The evidence fell “far short” of demonstrating pervasive or severe harassment, the court concluded.

Employer liability. Although no reasonable jury could find for the employee on his § 1981 claim, the court nonetheless addressed the issue of employer liability. As the employee’s supervisor, the medical center would be strictly liable for the supervisor’s discriminatory conduct if the harassment resulted in a tangible employment action. Termination is a tangible employment action. Strict liability, however, does not attach simply because an employment action occurs, but rather that action must constitute a culmination of harassment. As the court explained above, nothing—other than speculation—connected the supervisor’s harassment or the employee’s race to his ultimate termination. Therefore, there was no basis to hold the center or its president liable under § 1981.

The corporate president could only be personally liable under § 1981 if he participated in, directed, consented to, or acquiesced to the discriminatory behavior. And here, the record contained no evidence to suggest that this was the case. Although the president knew the supervisor used “foul language,” he had no idea the supervisor commented upon employees’ ethnicity and no idea the employee subjectively felt discriminated against. Therefore, said the court, even if the employee could get to a jury on his § 1981 claim, he had no legal basis to hold the corporate officer personally liable.

Accordingly, the court granted the motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-01221.

Judge: Blakey, J.

Attorneys: Pasha Vaziri (Vaziri Law) for Manoj Papa. Amanda Crusoe Hibbler (Foley & Lardner) for Edward J. Green and Community First Healthcare of Illinois, Inc. d/b/a Community First Medical Center.

Companies: Community First Healthcare of Illinois, Inc.; Community First Medical Center

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination NationalOrigin ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge CoverageLiability IllinoisNews