Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D.N.Y.: Mark Morris dancer, its sole Black female company member, advances bias claims, (Sep 21, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Among other things, the dancer’s hair was criticized, she was permitted less rehearsal time than other members, and she was punished for taking medical leave to address preexisting conditions.

A former dancer for the Mark Morris Dance Group (MMDG) survived a motion to dismiss several claims alleging race and disability discrimination and retaliation. A federal district court in New York determined that her allegations satisfied the requirements of Title VII and the ADA, which was sufficient to also advance her NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims along with her claims falling under Section 1981. The dancer’s allegations included assertions that non-Black dancers were permitted rehearsals as understudies while she was not, and that non-Black dancers were permitted to take COVID-19 sick leave without experiencing punitive consequences culminating in termination. Further, her allegations that MMDG leaders made racist comments to Black employees served to further support an inference of discriminatory motivation (Lyons v. Discalced, Inc., dba Mark Morris Dance Group, No. 25 Civ. 8689 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case is an Afro-Latina professional dancer who was employed by MMDG from January 20, 2022, to May 21, 2024. She was MMDG’s only hire out of 350-400 auditioning dancers and was promoted from apprentice to a full member of the company after only six months. She was the youngest dancer in the company, its first-ever Latina dancer, and the only Black female dancer out of approximately 14 dancers.

Racialized comments. During her employment, the dancer was allegedly subjected to racialized comments and was treated less favorably than non-Black dancers. The company’s artistic director and namesake twice criticized her natural hair as “too big” and a distraction, suggesting that she wear a wig. When she changed her hair to a style with cornrows, he told her he was “pro Black hair” and “ha[s] lots of Black friends,” but that she would need his permission before changing her hairstyle again.

MMDG did not offer the dancer as much rehearsal time as other dancers, and she was the only dancer who was expected to learn roles merely by watching others.

Pattern. The comments occurred in the context of MMDG’s alleged pattern of mistreatment of Black employees. During the dancer’s first eight months with the company, the artistic director was “on probation, by order of the Board of Directors, for his long history of racist remarks,” which included repeatedly calling a former Black dancer the N-word. Other members of leadership also made racially charged remarks.

In addition, Black MMDG employees reported worse conditions of employment than non-Black employees, including Black receptionists making less money than their white counterparts. Other Black dancers also reported receiving inadequate rehearsal time.

Medical conditions. The dancer asserted that she suffered from three medical conditions during her employment. She started her tenure with preexisting endometriosis and undifferentiated autoimmune disease (UAD), and suffered a torn Achilles tendon during a performance. When she repeatedly requested accommodations for these conditions, she allegedly began experiencing increasing hostility in the workplace.

Complaints. In December 2023, the dancer complained to the company director that MMDG was punishing her for taking medical leave and holding her to a double standard. The company director responded that she was “too defensive” and was acting just like the only other Latino dancer in the company.

One month later, she complained to an individual who was recently hired to handle HR issues that another white dancer had “accosted and berated” her. The HR employee was “extremely cold and hostile” and cross-examined the dancer with “rapid-fire questions in a hostile tone.” The two did not communicate again until the dancer’s termination.

Tensions increase. After taking a week of sick leave because of a COVID-19 diagnosis in January 2024, the dancer was removed from her lead role in an upcoming performance and was required to “cover” for all 14 roles in the performance, despite never having a chance to rehearse. She was called on as a last-minute replacement for one night and performed the roles seamlessly. Nonetheless, the company director emailed the dancer afterward to reprimand her, saying he was “alarmed” at her lack of preparation. According to the dancer, MMDG did not subject non-Black dancers who took sick leave for COVID-19 to similar treatment.

During this same period, the dancer was forced to perform a full run-through of a different dance, despite the company therapist stating that doing so would be too strenuous given her Achilles injury.

Termination. Sometime in late April, the dancer experienced a UAD flare-up. She sought medical treatment, which caused her to miss a rehearsal. At the time, she had not taken a day off in two weeks. On May 21, she was told that the artistic director had personally decided to fire her because the “magic” was not there anymore.

Subsequently, the dancer filed this lawsuit, asserting claims for race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The court considered each in turn.

Adverse actions. First, the court addressed the dancer’s claim of Title VII race discrimination, finding she had asserted several viable theories of adverse action, including different terms and conditions of employment based on race, a hostile work environment, and discriminatory termination.

As to the hostile work environment, the court rejected MMDG’s assertions that any offensive comments were little more than isolated or stray remarks. In addition to the comments directed at the dancer herself, her allegations concerning other Black employees, including the artistic director’s use of the N-word, were not “background and filler” as MMDG suggested, but rather supported a plausible finding that a hostile work environment existed at MMDG.

Causation. In addition to showing adverse action, the dancer satisfied her burden of alleging facts that give rise to a plausible inference of discrimination as to all three theories of adverse action. The court found that she had done so by alleging, among other things, that non-Black dancers were permitted rehearsals as understudies while she was not, and that non-Black dancers were permitted to take COVID-19 sick leave without experiencing punitive consequences culminating in termination.

In addition, the dancer’s allegations that MMDG leaders had made racist comments to Black employees further supported an inference of discriminatory motivation. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss her Title VII claim of race discrimination was denied. So too was it denied as to her Section 1981, NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, given she had adequately pleaded a Title VII violation.

Qualifying disabilities. Next, the court turned to the dancer’s disability discrimination claims, beginning with her ADA failure to accommodate claim. The dancer alleged three qualifying disabilities under the ADA: (1) a torn Achilles tendon; (2) endometriosis; and (3) UAD.

Reasonable accommodation. On the question of whether the dancer adequately alleged that she could perform her essential job functions with reasonable accommodation, the court found she had satisfied this standard. None of her conditions permanently prevented her from meeting the requirement to be physically capable of performing on the stage and the accommodations she had requested, including temporary modified duties, being excused from performing or rehearsing on discrete occasions, and attending medical appointments, were all plausibly reasonable, said the court.

According to MMDG, because the dancer was allowed to take medical leave on multiple occasions, “she was in fact accommodated.” The court was not moved. Such an argument ignored the dancer’s assertion that she was retaliated against and ultimately fired for taking medical leave, observed the court. At most, the question whether a reasonable accommodation was denied would require further development of the factual record, making dismissal at this stage inappropriate.

ADA discrimination. Turning to the dancer’s claim for ADA discrimination, the court noted that she had already alleged qualifying disabilities and multiple adverse actions, and was qualified for the role. The only remaining determination was whether any of the alleged adverse actions occurred “because of” the dancer’s disabilities.

Here, the court found that, accepting the dancer’s allegations as true, MMDG consistently responded with hostility to the dancer’s disability-related requests and limitations. In addition, the sequence of events immediately prior to two relevant adverse actions—the 2024 restrictions on her rehearsal time and her ultimate termination—further strengthened the inference of discrimination.

In response, MMDG argued that its knowledge of the dancer’s UAD and endometriosis at the time of her hire undercut any theory of disability discrimination based on those conditions. However, the court noted that the complaint pleaded facts indicating that MMDG was hostile toward the dancer whenever her preexisting conditions required accommodation, and thus this argument was premature. “Moreover, hiring an employee with disabilities, then expecting that employee to perform in the same way as her able-bodied colleagues, does not preclude an inference of discrimination,” said the court.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the dancer’s ADA discrimination claim was denied, along with the motion to dismiss the same arising under they NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.

Retaliation. Finally, the court addressed the dancer’s claims of retaliation, beginning with her Title VII and Section 1981 claims. The court determined the dancer adequately alleged that she engaged in protected activity and that, because of her protected activity, a reasonable employee would be dissuaded from making similar complaints. For example, the court noted the HR representative’s response to her formal complaint involved rapid-fire questioning and a failure to follow up with the employee until her termination. In addition, the reason given for her termination was vague. Further the company director removed her from a lead dance role and then required her to cover 14 roles without rehearsal just 10 days after her second complaint. Taken together, these allegations gave plausible support to the claim that MMDG retaliated against the dancer for opposing racial discrimination.

For similar reasons, the motion to dismiss the dancer’s ADA and FMLA retaliation claims was also denied, along with the motion to dismiss her NYCHRL and NYSHRL retaliation claims.

The case is No. 25 Civ. 8689 (AT).

Judge: Torres, A.

Attorneys: Chloe Liederman (Crumiller) for Taina Lyons. Christopher Giovinco (Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden) for Discalced, Inc., dba Mark Morris Dance Group.

Companies: Discalced, Inc.; Mark Morris Dance Group

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave Retaliation StateLawClaims Covid19 NewYorkNews