Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D.N.Y.: Race considerations cloud university’s hiring decision, (Sep 10, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A hiring manager’s race-based remark and the university’s use of applicant demographic information raised questions about its reasons for choosing a Black candidate over a white internal applicant.

A longtime Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) employee, a white woman, can pursue race discrimination claims over her unsuccessful application for a director position because evidence surrounding the hiring process could allow a jury to question RIT’s stated reasons for selecting a Black man over her. RIT cited the selected applicant’s leadership experience and vision for the department as reasons for its decision. But other evidence raised questions about that explanation, including RIT’s tracking of applicant demographics and a hiring manager’s statement that a Black applicant should be included in the campus interviews. Those circumstances, viewed against RIT’s emphasis on increasing racial diversity, left unresolved whether race influenced the decision. Accordingly, a federal court in New York denied summary judgment to both sides on the former associate director’s race discrimination claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). However, RIT prevailed on her gender discrimination and disability retaliation claims, as well as a breach of contract claim (Ecock-Rotondo v. Rochester Institute of Technology, No. 6:23-CV-6166 EAW (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2026)).

Director search. RIT hired the employee in 2013 as associate director of its Center for Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution, part of the university’s Student Affairs department. She unsuccessfully applied for the center’s director position in 2018 and remained associate director after RIT selected another woman for the job.

After that director left RIT in January 2022, the university began another search. The employee applied despite telling colleagues that she planned to leave RIT and would quit if she did not receive the promotion. She had spent nearly 10 years as the center’s associate director after previously serving as an assistant director in student conflict management at another university.

A RIT talent acquisition official conducted the initial screening. His applicant tracker included contact and employment information, salary expectations, and “diversity metrics” identifying gender and race. His notes described the associate director as the most experienced of the five applicants initially screened and the easiest to transition into the position, although she was not human resources’ top choice.

The search committee later narrowed the field to three finalists: the associate director, another white woman, and a Black man who was serving as director of residential life and education at another university. The hiring manager reportedly told the committee that RIT was not going to bring “two white women to campus” for interviews without also bringing the Black applicant. All three then participated in campus interviews.

Feedback was mixed. Campus participants praised the associate director’s extensive RIT experience, vision for the department, and understanding of student conduct, but some questioned whether an internal candidate would bring sufficient change or a fresh perspective. The Black applicant drew praise for his restorative practices background and leadership experience, although some participants expressed concern about his more limited student conduct experience.

The hiring manager ultimately considered him the strongest candidate because he articulated a positive, forward-looking vision incorporating restorative justice and brought director-level, budgeting, supervisory, and collaborative experience. She believed the associate director focused too heavily during her interviews on past accomplishments rather than how she would lead the department. The employee resigned shortly after learning that RIT had selected him.

Race in hiring. The circumstances were sufficient to support an initial inference of race discrimination. RIT selected a candidate from a different racial group even though its own screening notes identified the associate director as the most experienced of the five applicants initially screened. Evidence that race may have factored into the hiring process provided additional support for that inference.

Nonetheless, RIT offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision. The selected candidate had already held a director-level position and could discuss his budgeting, supervisory, and interdepartmental experience. The hiring manager also preferred his forward-looking approach and cited concerns about the associate director’s leadership during her years at RIT. But competing evidence prevented a determination that those explanations either did or did not mask race discrimination.

RIT’s diversity initiatives alone could not establish discriminatory intent, and the participation of an employee responsible for staff diversity was not inherently suspect. The demographic information in the applicant tracker similarly could have served legitimate purposes, while the parties disputed whether sharing that information with the hiring manager violated RIT’s practices.

Other evidence raised more difficult questions. The hiring manager had expressly referred to race when explaining why the Black applicant should receive a campus interview rather than bringing only white women to campus. The parties disputed the significance of that remark, as well as whether RIT discounted concerns about the selected candidate’s student conduct experience while undervaluing the associate director’s qualifications.

The qualifications dispute could not decide the case by itself. Title VII does not require an employer to select the candidate a factfinder considers best qualified, and employers may rely on subjective assessments made during interviews. The selected candidate also met the position’s minimum requirements and had residence-life experience that included student conduct responsibilities. Taken together, however, the conflicting evidence left unresolved whether RIT’s stated reasons were pretextual. Therefore, the race discrimination claims remained for trial.

Gender and retaliation. The former associate director’s gender discrimination claims lacked comparable evidence. Much of the conduct she attributed to gender occurred outside the limitations period for her Title IX claim and involved her former supervisor, who played no role in the 2022 hiring decision. As to the promotion itself, the employee relied principally on RIT’s selection of a man but did not connect its reasons for choosing him to her gender. Consequently, the evidence could not support a finding that sex influenced the decision.

Her disability retaliation claims failed for a different reason. The employee maintained that she faced retaliation after advocating for accommodations and fair treatment for a deaf coworker she supervised. But the only asserted event within the ADA’s 300-day limitations period was RIT’s 2022 hiring decision, and she produced no evidence connecting that decision to her earlier advocacy. Her former supervisor, whom she blamed for much of the asserted retaliation, left RIT before the director search and played no part in it.

The longer limitations period under the NYSHRL did not save the state retaliation claim. Although removing the employee’s supervisory responsibilities could qualify as an adverse action, the only arguably protected activity within the limitations period occurred after that change and therefore could not have caused it. Her earlier advocacy also was too remote from the 2022 promotion decision to establish causation. Therefore, RIT obtained summary judgment on the disability retaliation claims, leaving only the race discrimination claims for further proceedings.

The case is No. 6:23-CV-6166 EAW.

Judge: Wolford, E.

Attorneys: Jennifer Morgan Elizabeth Levy (J. Morgan Levy Firm) for Jessica L. Ecock-Rotondo. Taren Nicole Greenidge (Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete) for Rochester Institute of Technology.

Companies: Rochester Institute of Technology

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination SexDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation StateLawClaims NewYorkNews