Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—S.D.W. Va.: Manager fired for use of N-word during work-related golf outing loses last shot at trial, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

A Black coworker, who was not disciplined after playing music with the slur at the outing and an unrelated “Klan meeting” remark, did not engage in sufficiently similar conduct to suggest pretext.

Alcon Research, LLC, will not face trial on a former senior manager’s claims that his termination over his use of the N-word during a golf outing with colleagues in response to a younger Black manager’s playing of a song that referenced the slur was pretext for race and age discrimination. A federal district court in West Virginia reasoned that, while the manager may disagree that saying the N-word to a group of coworkers is worse than playing music with the slur or referring to a group of white people as a “Klan meeting” during a private conversion, the employer’s taking that view was not evidence of pretext, nor was its policy of encouraging diversity. Moreover, the seven-year age difference between the two of them was not significant enough to suggest age bias (Piepiora v. Alcon Research, LLC, No. 3:25-0122 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2026)).

Colleague plays song with slur. The manager worked at an Alcon facility in Huntington, West Virginia. The incident at issue occurred when he and his coworkers went on a golf outing to celebrate one of the colleague’s departure from employment. During the outing, a younger Black coworker began playing music, including a song that included the N-word. The manager remarked, “I don’t like this n**ger music.” Another coworker told him he needed to apologize for using the slur, but he did not do so at the time.

HR investigation. About two months later, someone filed a complaint about the manager’s use of the N-word at the outing. The HR director promptly investigated and ultimately determined that he had used the slur in front of his colleagues. Based on this finding, an internal review committee (IRC), together with the HR director and another senior director, decided that he should be terminated.

“Klan meeting” remark. As part of her investigation, the HR director also learned that the Black coworker who played the music with the slur had once referred in a private conversation to a group of white employees going out to lunch as a “Klan meeting.” However, he never faced any discipline for his conduct. One IRC member stated that neither the Klan comment nor his allegedly offensive music warranted discipline, in part because he timely apologized. Another member agreed that playing music with the slur was not comparable to the white manager’s direct interpersonal use of the slur.

Lawsuit. The manager sued, alleging that his termination violated the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA) and West Virginia public policy. He also alleged that the employer intentionally caused him to suffer emotional distress.

Pretext. The court assumed, without deciding, that he has made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, and the employer provided a non-discriminatory reason for terminating him—his use of the N-word. Therefore, at issue was whether he offered sufficient evidence that this reason was pretextual, and the court held that he failed to do so.

Black coworker not proper comparator. First, the court squarely rejected his contention that pretext could be inferred from the employer’s failure to similarly discipline the Black coworker for playing music with the N-word and making the “Klan meeting” remark, concluding that their conduct was not sufficiently similar. Even if his conduct may have violated the anti-harassment policy’s prohibition against racial slurs, jokes, and epithets, it did not follow that the company’s decision not to discipline him suggested race discrimination since an employer may treat different violations of the same policy differently based on the violations’ relative severity. Therefore, the court reasoned, while the manager may disagree that saying the N-word to a group of coworkers is worse than playing music with the slur or referring to a group of white people as a “Klan meeting” during a private conversion, the employer taking that view is not evidence of pretext.

Consideration of apology. The employer’s consideration of the Black coworker’s apology in deciding not to discipline him also did not suggest pretext, even considering that the HR director testified that the company would have terminated the manager regardless of whether he had immediately apologized for saying the N-word. Given the differences between the manager’s and the Black coworker’s conduct, the employer’s “different attitudes towards apologizing do not indicate racial bias.”

Misconduct supported firing. In addition, the court rejected the manager’s contention that pretext could be inferred since his one-time use of the use of the N-word was not sufficient to support a claim of a race-based hostile work environment. Finding that “his argument is a non sequitur,” the court emphasized that “[a]n employer may validly fire an employee for misconduct even if that misconduct does not expose the employer to legal liability,” did not agree that firing someone for using the N-word “is so absurd or surprising that it evinces pretext.”

Diversity argument rejected. The court also rejected the manager’s contention that the employer’s policy of “encouraging diversity,” coupled with its overwhelmingly white workforce, suggested the company sought to replace white employees with employees of color. While a reasonable juror could conclude that the employer “was generally interested in increasing minority employment,” this did not suggest that the manager’s particular firing was racially motived, particularly since he was not replaced by a person of color and his termination did not meaningfully alter the overwhelmingly white makeup of the facility’s workforce. Moreover, this evidence was undermined by the employer’s decision to lay off the Black coworker (one of the facility’s two Black managers) less than a year after it fired the manager himself.

Age-based reduced schedule offers. The manager also failed to present sufficient evidence to show his termination was pretext for age discrimination. First, his assertion that the employer tried to force two older employees to accept part-time employment was not supported by the record. One of the individuals had asked for that option before it was offered, and the other was dealing with his wife’s terminal illness and did not face any pressure or consequences for turning down the offer. This, the court reasoned, actually showed that the employer provided extra accommodations to older workers.

Although three of the five individuals involved in the decision to terminate the manager were substantially younger than him, this did not suggest pretext, particularly since the two older decisionmakers concurred in the decision. Moreover, the company’s failure to discipline the younger Black coworker also did not reflect age bias since, as discussed, they engaged in different conduct. But even if their actions were comparable, their seven-year age difference was not significant enough to suggest age bias.

Remaining claims. The manager’s tort claims also failed as a matter of law. First, no reasonable juror could conclude that the employer violated the public policy against discriminatory firing, and even if such a claim encompassed terminations based on good-faith reports of misconduct, there was no evidence suggesting that he was fired because he reported the coworker’s music. His intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also failed since there was no evidence showing that the way he was terminated him was outrageous.

The case is No. 3:25-0122.

Judge: Chambers, R.

Attorneys: Tammy Bowles Raines (Tammy Bowles Raines Law Office) for Dean Piepiora. Anders W. Lindberg (Steptoe & Johnson) for Alcon Research, LLC.

Companies: Alcon Research, LLC

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discharge Discrimination AgeDiscrimination StateLawClaims TortClaims WestVirginiaNews