Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—S.D. Ga.: Property manager’s race bias, retaliation claims advance over disputed performance-based firing, (Sep 14, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

A favorable performance review, the employer’s failure to use progressive discipline, and the manager’s termination 13 days after her discrimination complaint supported disputes over discriminatory and retaliatory intent.

A Black community manager may proceed to trial with Title VII and Section 1981 race discrimination and retaliation claims against a property management company that fired her shortly after she complained to HR about alleged racial disparities. Denying the employer’s summary judgment motion in full, a federal district court in Georgia found evidence that a similarly situated white property manager received higher pay and additional work opportunities. The employer’s failure to document the manager’s alleged performance deficiencies or use its progressive discipline process also could permit a factfinder to disbelieve its explanation for terminating her (Ingram-Augurson v. Makor Management LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00207-JRH (S.D. Ga. Sept. 10, 2026)).

Workplace disparities. The employee was hired in October 2022 as community manager of one of three apartment properties operated by the employer in Augusta, Georgia. She asserted that employees at her location were predominantly Black, while the other two properties had majority-white staff and white property managers.

According to the employee, her property received less favorable treatment in several respects. Requests for move-in specials were denied, outside leasing agents remained at the other properties longer, her location had inadequate maintenance staffing, and employees there received lower pay. She also claimed that managers at the other properties received training and work opportunities that were unavailable to her.

The parties disputed many of these allegations, including the relative performance and staffing of the properties. The employer maintained that the employee’s property had the highest occupancy rate and disputed her descriptions of maintenance staffing and security needs. The court later distinguished many of these property-level differences from employment actions affecting the manager personally.

The employee received a 3.07 out of 5 on her March 2024 performance review, reflecting that she “meets expectations.” In fact, she met or exceeded expectations in 13 of 14 performance categories. The employer nevertheless asserted that she had difficulty managing workplace issues and that a May 2024 inspection revealed numerous deficiencies, including unresolved resident and pest-control problems and vacant units in disrepair. The employee disputed that characterization and maintained that no major property-wide problems were identified.

Discrimination complaint. The employer asserted that the regional manager contacted HR on July 14 to begin terminating the employee for performance issues. The employee disputed that the termination process began at that point.

On July 18, she filed a formal grievance with HR alleging race discrimination and followed up on July 29. The employer fired her two days later, on July 31. Although the regional manager claimed she did not know about the grievance when she made the termination decision, the employee presented evidence that an HR representative who knew of the complaint participated in the decision.

The employee subsequently sued, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981.

Disparate treatment. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court first rejected the employer’s contention that the employee could not establish a prima facie discrimination case because she was unqualified and lacked a similarly situated comparator.

Her five years of previous property-management experience supported an inference that she was qualified. Relying on Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999), the court observed that an employee’s tenure in a position can support an inference that she was qualified to perform that work.

Not every disparity the employee identified established differential treatment of her personally. Differences involving move-in specials, maintenance staffing, outside leasing agents, and individual lease applications principally concerned how the properties were managed.

But other evidence directly concerned her employment. She testified that a white manager at another property earned more. That manager held the same position, worked at a property owned by the same employer, and reported to the same regional manager. Evidence also indicated that he received opportunities involving property sales, audits, due diligence, and travel assignments that were not offered to the employee. The court therefore found sufficient evidence of more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside her protected class.

Pretext. Although the employer articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge—poor performance and an asserted inability to perform essential job functions—the record created a factual dispute over whether that explanation was pretextual.

The employee received no written warnings or disciplinary action before her termination, and her March performance review did not document the deficiencies the employer later relied upon. Instead, it showed that she met or exceeded expectations in nearly every assessed category.

The employer also had a progressive discipline policy providing multiple levels of corrective action before termination but did not use those measures with the employee. Citing Ritchie v. Industrial Steel, Inc., 426 F. App’x 867 (11th Cir. 2011), the court explained that an employer’s failure to follow an established progressive discipline policy can support a showing of pretext.

Taken together, the favorable performance review, absence of prior discipline, and departure from the progressive discipline process created a genuine dispute over whether poor performance was the actual reason for the discharge. Because the employee satisfied the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court found it unnecessary to separately analyze whether the evidence formed a convincing mosaic of discrimination.

Retaliation. The retaliation claims also survived. The parties agreed that the employee’s discrimination complaints constituted protected activity and that her termination was materially adverse. The dispute centered on causation.

The timing supplied significant evidence. Only 13 days separated her first formal discrimination complaint from her termination, while her follow-up complaint came just two days before she was fired. Moreover, an HR representative who received the discrimination complaint was among those involved in the termination decision.

The court found the combination sufficient to establish causation at the prima facie stage. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, close temporal proximity can support a causal connection when a decisionmaker knows of the protected activity. Here, the record supported both knowledge and a period of less than two weeks.

The employer again relied on the employee’s alleged inability to perform her duties as its legitimate, nonretaliatory reason. But the same evidentiary conflicts that supported pretext on the discrimination claims applied to retaliation. The favorable review, lack of documented discipline, and failure to use progressive corrective measures left the employer’s discharge explanation open to challenge before a jury.

Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on the employee’s Title VII and Section 1981 disparate treatment and retaliation claims.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-00207-JRH.

Judge: Hall, R.

Attorneys: Jesse Lee Kelly, II (Law Offices of Jesse Kelly) for Janay Ingram-Augurson. Carey E. Olson (Atkins & Associates) for Makor Management LLC.

Companies: Makor Management LLC

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge GeorgiaNews