Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D.N.Y.: Former nonprofit housing chief cannot advance race, disability claims, (Sep 18, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

There was no triable issue that the employer’s furlough and termination decisions were motivated by discrimination or retaliation.

A New York federal district court granted summary judgment to a nonprofit housing organization and two of its executives on all claims brought by the organization's former chief of staff, who alleged race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and breach of ADA confidentiality obligations arising from her employment, furlough, and termination during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The employee had alleged that members of the organization, including leadership, used different language when addressing white and non-white employees, and that the organization disclosed her COVID-19 diagnosis without her consent. When she complained about that, she alleged she was ultimately furloughed and then terminated (Alston v. MHANY Management, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 2080 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2026)).

The chief of staff, who is African-American, was hired by the nonprofit in October 2018 following a multi-step interview process that included a resume review, an in-person interview, and preparation of a work plan. She became the organization’s third highest-paid employee.

Offensive comments. Before hiring her, the executive director had remarked that it would be good to hire a “person of color” for the role. During the chief of staff’s tenure, she alleged that the executive director used the phrases “you folks” and “you people” toward Black and Hispanic staff, called the chief of staff “uppity” and “Ms. Perfect Perfect,” and made isolated comments about Black people’s musical tastes and appearance. The chief of staff also alleged that the fiscal director yelled at her and once described her as speaking “very loud.”

Medical leave. When the pandemic reached New York in March 2020, the chief of staff took medical leave, was later diagnosed with COVID-19, and was hospitalized. The executive director disclosed the chief of staff’s diagnosis to nonprofit staff during an office meeting called to address employee safety concerns, later apologizing to the plaintiff for the disclosure. The nonprofit subsequently furloughed the chief of staff, citing a lack of remote work and severe revenue losses tied to a pandemic-era eviction moratorium, and terminated her in October 2020, eliminating her position entirely.

Subsequently, the chief of staff sued the organization and two of its leaders for racial discrimination, disability discrimination, violation of ADA confidentiality, and retaliation. The nonprofit filed the instant motion for summary judgment.

Race discrimination claim. The chief of staff alleged she was hired as a “token” Black member of leadership and was prevented from fully performing her duties as chief of staff. For support she pointed to the record where the executive director admitted saying that it would be great if the chief of staff candidate were a person of color, and that the executive director referred to the staff as “folks” for employees and “you folks” for Black and brown employees.

Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to the Title VII and pre-amendment New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) claims, and the more lenient “treated less well” standard governing the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and post-amendment NYSHRL, the court concluded that the chief of staff's race discrimination claims failed even under the most plaintiff-favorable standard.

According to the court, being hired, even if partly motivated by a preference for a candidate of color, does not constitute being treated less well. It also found that executive director’s use of “folks” was directed at employees of all races, and that the addition of “you” did not, without more, carry the kind of racially freighted meaning present in the precedent the chief of staff invoked, whereas references to Black employees “going to the fields” evoked slavery.

In addition, the court held that the isolated remarks about rap music and age perception, while generalizations based on race, were non-derogatory, not directed at the chief of staff, and were not subjectively experienced by her as hostile, based on her own deposition testimony. Because the NYCHRL sets the floor for all other race discrimination claims, the failure of that claim under the “petty slights” doctrine doomed the parallel Title VII and NYSHRL theories.

ADA, disability and retaliation claims. Turning to the remaining claims, the court held that no reasonable jury could find the requisite causal nexus between the chief of staff's disability and the challenged conduct. The record showed the executive director repeatedly expressed concern for her health, disclosing her diagnosis in direct response to staff inquiries in an unmasked, open-plan office, and apologizing afterward. The court found the nonprofit’s furlough and termination decisions were explained by undisputed evidence of the organization’s pandemic-driven revenue collapse, cessation of several job functions, and furloughs of other employees, while the chief of staff offered only speculative assertions about work she claimed she could have performed remotely, undermined by her own admitted lack of knowledge about the nonprofit’s pandemic operations.

Finally, the court rejected the chief of staff’s ADA confidentiality claim, holding that the statutory obligation to safeguard disability-related information attaches only where an employer obtains it through a “disability-related inquiry.” Because the executive director’s text messages asked about the plaintiff’s general well-being and whereabouts rather than eliciting diagnostic details, the court found no such inquiry occurred, precluding liability regardless of the subsequent disclosure to staff.

Concluding that the chief of staff failed to raise a triable issue on any claim, the court granted summary judgment to the nonprofit.

The case is No. 23 Civ. 2080 (AT).

Judge: Torres, A.

Attorneys: Megan Sarah Goddard (Goddard Law) for Rasheida Alston. Ariadne Anna Panagopoulou Alexandrou (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith) for Ismene Speliotis, Marie Christine Simmons and MHANY Management, Inc.

Companies: MHANY Management, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge Privacy Retaliation StateLawClaims Covid19 NewYorkNews