Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving discrimination and retaliation, (Apr 25, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent decisions involving discrimination and/or retaliation claims of interest to the labor and employment law community.

D.D.C.: Terminated database engineer alleging race bias failed to show pretext. A Black senior database engineer working for a behavioral sciences research organization alleged racial discrimination and retaliation following her termination. The engineer, who was supervised by a white male and worked under an Asian male project manager, cited several incidents as evidence of discriminatory practices, including a contentious meeting with the project manager, a negative performance evaluation, issues surrounding teleworking arrangements, and charges of insubordination. After her termination, she sued, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the DCHRA. The organization moved for summary judgment, arguing that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, specifically the engineer’s violation of company policy and insubordination. The court found that the engineer failed to provide evidence showing pretext, and did not engage in protected activity that could substantiate her retaliation claims. The motion was granted (Dieng v. American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, No. 1:18-cv-01220-EGS (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2025)).

D.D.C.: Plumber’s termination was due to lack of work, not race or retaliation. An African American plumber employed by a government office challenged the nonrenewal of his employment contract, claiming racial discrimination, interference with FMLA rights, and retaliation after he tested positive for COVID-19. The plumber sued the government office alleging race discrimination under Title VII and the Congressional Accountability Act; interference and retaliation under the FMLA; and retaliation for testing positive for COVID-19 under the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and FMLA. The government office moved for summary judgment, arguing that the nonrenewal was due to a lack of sufficient plumbing work and the plumber’s performance not being among the top on the team. The court found that the government office provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. The court also determined that the individual failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the stated reason was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The court granted the motion (Jones v. Office of the Architect of the Capital, No. 1:21-cv-00990-CKK (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2025)).

W.D. La.: Truck driver was terminated because of disciplinary issues, not discrimination complaints. A Black male truck driver who was terminated by a trucking company alleged his termination was retaliatory, following his complaints of racial discrimination, specifically favoritism towards white employees by his supervisor. The company employs a “point-based discipline system,” where accumulating over 100 points in one year results in termination. The employee had accrued numerous disciplinary infractions, leading to his termination after accumulating 110 points. The employee sued the trucking company alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. The company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons tied to the employee’s performance issues and disciplinary record. The court found that while the employee established a prima facie case of retaliation, he failed to provide substantial evidence of pretext. The court granted the motion (Phillips v. Enterprise Products Co., No. 6:24-cv-00314-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La. Apr. 11, 2025)).

S.D. Ohio: African American nurse was allegedly harassed by one manager, sexually assaulted by another. An African American nurse working at an Ohio chicken processing facility allegedly suffered racist comments from the facility’s employee safety and health manager, and was allegedly sexually assaulted by one of the plant managers on multiple occasions. The managers’ conduct persisted even after she reported the incidents internally. When the employee filed charges with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the EEOC, she alleged further retaliatory behavior from other staff members. The employee and her husband sued the company, claiming harassment based on sex and race, and retaliation, under Title VII and Ohio law, among other things. The employer sought dismissal of the employee’s retaliation claims, arguing insufficient evidence of adverse employment action and a causal connection between her complaints about harassment and the alleged retaliation. However, the court found that the employee’s allegations, particularly regarding the frequency and severity of harassment, were sufficient to plausibly suggest retaliatory harassment by the managers that altered her work environment. The court also found that the employee “plausibly alleged a causal connection” (Smith v. Koch Meat Co., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00545-DRC (S.D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2025)).

S.D. Ohio: 63-year-old production supervisor fired because of performance, policy violations, not age. An oleochemical manufacturer terminated an employee who served as a production supervisor, citing poor performance and policy violations. The employee alleged that his termination was due to age discrimination and retaliation, and sued the company alleging Age Discrimination under the ADEA and Ohio law, and retaliation. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employee’s termination was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons—“policy violations and poor performance.” The court found that while the employee established a prima facie case of age discrimination, he failed to demonstrate pretext. The employee admitted to several policy violations, including failing to escalate production downtime and breaching attendance and COVID protocols. Additionally, the court found no evidence of similarly situated employees being treated more favorably. Consequently, the motion was granted (Forte v. Peter Cremer North America, LP, No. 1:22-cv-00314-MWM (S.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2025)).

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Covid19 Discharge WageHour Retaliation StateLawClaims EmployeeLeave PublicEmployees SexualHarassment AgeDiscrimination