Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—S.D. Ind.: Registered behavior technician’s bias and retaliation claims will not move forward, (Aug 28, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry. J.D., MBA

Undisputed evidence showed that she failed to meet the employer’s legitimate professional expectations.

An Indiana federal court granted summary judgment to an employer on a Registered Behavior Technician’s Title VII race discrimination and retaliation claims, finding that the former Hopebridge employee failed to identify evidence showing that she met the employer’s legitimate performance expectations, suffered an adverse employment action because of her race, received less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees outside her protected class, or experienced retaliation because of protected activity. The court separately dismissed her hostile work environment claim without prejudice because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies (Ward v. Hopebridge, No. 1:24-cv-00938-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2026)).

In August 2020, the plaintiff, a Black woman, began working for the employer, Hopebridge, as a Registered Behavior Technician, eventually advancing in levels. The employer maintains that the employee struggled to comply with workplace policies and standards, including by exceeding a 30-minute limit for post-shift administrative work, arriving late, failing to submit session notes in a timely manner, and displaying a lack of professionalism.

Internal complaint of discrimination. In July 2023, the employee submitted an internal complaint alleging racial discrimination, asserting that her supervisor left a door open while discussing the employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act leave, that the employer inconsistently applied its policy governing post-shift administrative time, and that the company failed to adequately investigate before disciplining her for inappropriate communications. The employer investigated and determined that the complaints were unsubstantiated.

EEOC charge and suit. In December 2023, the employee filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. She claimed that, after her complaint about discrimination the employer disciplined her for allegedly bullying coworkers, prevented her from staying after work or earning additional hours, and required her to mentor other employees.

She filed suit in June 2024, alleging that she was "[f]orced to talk about [her] [FMLA] in front of others"; was told she couldn't stay in the building after her shift to help clean, though others were allowed to stay; was written up for bullying; and was "hound[ed]" to mentor. She was fired in August 2024. The employer moved for summary judgment.

Race discrimination. Analyzing the employee’s race discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court concluded that the undisputed evidence showed the employee did not meet the employer’s legitimate performance expectations. Hopebridge produced evidence of habitual lateness, untimely session notes, policy violations, and unprofessional conduct, while the employee cited no evidence creating a factual dispute. She also failed to identify evidence of an adverse employment action or identify similarly situated employees outside her protected class who received more favorable treatment.

The claim also failed under the Seventh Circuit’s holistic approach, which considers the evidence collectively to determine whether it permits an inference of prohibited discrimination, the court concluded, as the undisputed evidence concerning the employee’s performance and Hopebridge’s investigation of her complaints would not permit a reasonable jury to infer racial discrimination.

Retaliation. To establish Title VII retaliation, the employee has to show that she engaged in protected activity, Hopebridge subjected her to an adverse employment action, and a causal connection existed between the two. Although the court assumed that her internal and EEOC complaints constituted protected activity it found no evidence establishing the remaining elements. The employee referred generally to increased scrutiny, disciplinary actions, hostile treatment, and termination but she did not identify evidence supporting those assertions or demonstrating that her protected activity caused any adverse action.

Her termination also failed to establish causation, the court concluded, as the plaintiff filed her internal complaint in July 2023 and her EEOC charge in December 2023, but Hopebridge did not terminate her until August 1, 2024. Even assuming sufficient temporal proximity, timing alone would rarely create a triable issue, and the plaintiff supplied no additional evidence connecting her complaints to the termination.

Unexhausted HWE claim. Additionally, the employer argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust any harassment or hostile work environment claim and the court agreed, concluding that the plaintiff waived any argument that she had properly exhausted the claim and dismissed the hostile work environment claim without prejudice.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-00938-JPH-MG.

Attorneys: Lakita Ward, pro se. Brian L. McDermott (Jackson Lewis) for Hopebridge.

Companies: Hopebridge

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge Procedure EvidenceDiscovery Retaliation IndianaNews