Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving race discrimination, (Dec 19, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D. Ariz.: Professor failed to show any material change in job status. A Black professor, who served as Division Chair of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Division at a community college, alleged the college engaged in racial discrimination and retaliation after he complained about his division being assigned the color brown and his staff “going around” him. He later discovered an email chain referencing a “current investigation” into his conduct. He ultimately filed suit alleging disparate treatment based on his race and retaliation under Title VII. The college moved for summary judgment, arguing that the professor failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or retaliation. The court found no evidence her suffered an adverse employment action—he retained his position, pay, and responsibilities. Concluding that the professor failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or retaliation under Title VII, the court granted the motion for summary judgment (Span v. Pinal County Community College District, No. 2:23-cv-02233-JJT (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2025)).

D. Conn.: Failure to evoke ‘pattern or practice’ framework, fact issues preclude summary judgment. Three former warehouse employees sued their employer, a wholesale distributor, and several supervisors alleging they engaged in race discrimination regarding promotions, warehouse position assignments, pay, workplace discipline, and terminations, and created a hostile work environment for Black workers. One employee also claimed retaliation and constructive discharge following his complaint about a coworker’s racial slur and related misconduct. The employer and supervisors moved for summary judgment arguing that the employees could not establish disparate impact or disparate treatment, severe or pervasive harassment, retaliation, or entitlement to punitive damages. The court denied the motion, holding that the employer improperly analyzed the discrimination claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework rather than the Teamsters “pattern or practice” standard applicable to class-based allegations, which “requires only that the plaintiff prove the existence of a discriminatory policy rather than all elements of a prima facie case of discrimination.” The court also found triable issues of fact on hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge claims. Finally, material issues of fact remained regarding malice and reckless indifference (Loiseau v. Bozzuto’s Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01485-JCH (D. Conn. Nov. 25, 2025)).

E.D. La.: Employee’s policy violations doom discrimination, retaliation claims. An employee who worked for a university since 2007 and was promoted to paint supervisor in 2016 was terminated in April 2023 after an internal investigation concluded that he treated Black painters differently than non-Black workers, in violation of the university’s anti-discrimination policies. The supervisor had authority to issue disciplinary reports and, between 2018 and 2022, wrote up four African-American painters for various infractions. After one of those painters filed a race discrimination complaint with the university’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), the supervisor submitted his own complaint alleging bias against him as a Caucasian, 59-year-old male, arguing that this was “a form of race and age discrimination.” Following an investigation, the university terminated the supervisor. The supervisor sued, alleging race discrimination under Title VII, age discrimination under the ADEA, and retaliation under Title VII. The university moved for summary judgment. The court held that although the supervisor established a prima facie case, the university articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—the OIE investigation that found that the supervisor “engaged in conduct that violated [the university’s] anti-discrimination and equal opportunity policies”—and the supervisor failed to produce substantial evidence of pretext. The court granted summary judgment on all claims (Brassette v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, No. 2:24-cv-02311-SM-EJD (E.D. La. Dec. 1, 2025)).

W.D. Wash.: Black mechanic’s hostile work environment claim against university advances. A Black refrigeration mechanic at a public university alleged he was denied promotion, harassed, and forced to resign due to race and age discrimination and retaliation after contacting HR about his application. He sued the university, its president, and other individuals, alleging eight claims, including violations of Title VII and Sections 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, and state-law emotional distress claims. The university and individuals moved for summary judgment. The court held that individual employees cannot be liable under Title VII and dismissed conspiracy-based Title VII claims. Additionally, the court dismissed the Section 1983 claims for lack of evidence of constitutional violations, the Section 1985(3) claims because of qualified immunity, and the Section 1986 claims because they were time-barred. The court also dismissed the state-law emotional distress claims for failure to show “extreme and outrageous conduct” or breach of duty and ruled punitive damages unavailable. However, the court denied summary judgment on the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the university (Bennett v. University of Washington, No. 2:24-cv-01777-JLR (W.D. Wash. Dec. 3, 2025)).

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees Discharge ClassActions