Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—W.D. La.: EEOC proved retaliation against Black employee who complained her supervisor asked if she attended BLM protests, (Jan 7, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The CEO undisputedly told her in a text that she was being placed on unpaid leave while the incident was investigated, and also later stated that she was terminated due to her “introduction of race” into the workplace.

A federal district court granted the EEOC’s bid for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as to its retaliation claim brought on behalf of a Black dental assistant who was placed on unpaid leave after she complained that she was offended by the clinic director’s questioning of whether she attended a Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest, though triable issues prevented summary judgment on the EEOC’s race discrimination and hostile work environment claims. Finding that the employee engaged in protected Title VII activity, the court noted that the fact the supervisor asked the question in front of a group of white coworkers reinforced the possible reasonableness of her belief the comment was racially charged and discriminatory. Moreover, a text from the CEO and the clinic’s subsequent statement to the EEOC provided direct evidence of causation and demonstrated pretext (EEOC v. Council for the Advancement of Social Services and Education, No. 23-0808 (W.D. La. Jan. 5, 2026)).

BLM remark. The employee worked at the dental clinic since July 2019. In early June 2020, during a period of widespread racial justice protests, the clinic’s director asked her whether she had attended a BLM protest. She was the only Black employee present during the incident. She was upset and humiliated by the director’s comment because she found it racially charged, and complained to a staff member.

Unpaid leave pending investigation. Her complaint was passed on to the clinic’s CEO, who was also the director’s wife. The CEO immediately sent a text message to the employee placing her on unpaid administrative leave pending an investigation into the incident between her and the director. She was never asked to return to work.

Fired due to “introduction of race.” During the EEOC investigation, the clinic stated that her removal stemmed from her “introduction of race” into the workplace. It also asserted that she was terminated, at least in part, for performance related reasons. The parties disputed whether the director made other racially offensive remarks, including comments referencing blackface and looting.

Lawsuit. The EEOC brought this Title VII lawsuit on the employee’s behalf and subsequently moved for partial summary judgment as to liability as to certain claims.

Protect activity. Turning first to the retaliation claim, the court found the employee undisputedly engaged in protected activity by opposing an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. Though it was questionable whether the director’s questioning of whether she had attended a BLM protest was sufficient to form the basis of a discrimination claim, the “protected activity” element of a retaliation claim only required an opposition to an unlawful employment practice. Thus, the EEOC did not need to show that an unlawful employment practice actually existed, but only that the employee had a “reasonable belief” that such practices existed.

Reasonable belief. Here, the record showed the employee subjectively believed the director had singled her out and was targeting her because of her race. Further, the context of his question—asked in front of a group of white coworkers—reinforced the possible reasonableness of her belief the comment was racially charged and discriminatory. Accordingly, her belief the director was unlawfully discriminating against her based on her race was not unreasonable, and she opposed the conduct by making a complaint that reached the CEO.

Adverse employment action. An adverse action is any act which may dissuade “a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Here, the employee was placed on unpaid administrative leave, which was clearly an adverse employment action.

Direct evidence. Lastly, there was direct evidence the clinic placed her on unpaid leave because she complained about the director’s conduct. Significantly, it was undisputed the CEO sent her a text stating that she was being placed on unpaid leave until the CEO completed her assessment concerning the incident with the director. Additionally, the CEO later stated that she was terminated for her “introduction of race” into the workplace. Since the employer thus admitted the employee was placed on unpaid leave because she complained about the director’s comment, the EEOC established a prima facie case of retaliation.

Because there was direct evidence of retaliation, the employer was required to demonstrate that it would have placed the employee on unpaid leave even if it had not taken her complaint into account. Though it attempted to blame her termination on performance deficiencies, the CEO’s text directly stated that she was being placed on unpaid leave until the CEO completed her assessment surrounding her complaint. Thus, because it was clear that she would not have been placed on leave if it were not for her complaints, the employer failed to meet its burden.

Pretext. Even if the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework were instead applied, the EEOC would still prevail since it demonstrated that the employer’s assertion the employee was placed on unpaid leave due to performance deficiencies was pretextual. In particular, the text message the CEO sent to the employee clearly stated that the reason she was being placed on unpaid leave was to investigate the incident. Therefore, the court granted the EEOC’s bid for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the retaliation claim.

Discrimination. Turning to the employee’s race discrimination claim, the court found the EEOC established she was qualified for her position and subjected to the adverse employment action of being placed on unpaid leave. However, summary judgment was not warranted on the issue of liability as to this claim since triable issues remained as to whether she was replaced by two white dental assistants who were similarly situated.

Hostile work environment. The court also denied the EEOC’s bid for summary judgment as to its hostile work environment claim. Notably, the director’s question about whether the employee had attended a BLM protest was the only race-based conduct that indisputably took place since triable issues existed as to whether he made various other racial comments. His one remark about her attendance at the protests—standing alone—was not sufficiently severe or pervasive.

The case is No. 23-0808.

Judge: Hicks, S., Jr.

Attorneys: Jacqueline Claire Barber for the EEOC. Carol D Powell-Lexing (Law Office of Carol D. Powell-Lexing) for Council for Advancement of Social Services & Education Community Health Institute dba CASSE Community Health Institute.

Companies: Council for Advancement of Social Services & Education Community Health Institute; CASSE Community Health Institute

Cases: Retaliation RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge LouisianaNews