Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving sex discrimination, (Jun 13, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

N.D. Okla.: Fire chief deviated from procedure to fill assistant chief positions. Two long-serving female employees of a city’s fire department sued the city after being passed over for assistant fire chief positions in favor of two male colleagues. Despite the department's established procedures, which included an oral board examination and a ranked eligibility list, the fire chief deviated from these procedures, allegedly to select preferred candidates. The union president expressed concerns that the deviation was unfair to the female candidates, who had superior qualifications. Subsequently, the female employees sued the city, alleging discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under Title VII. The department moved for summary judgment. The court found that the employees presented sufficient evidence of pretext, particularly in the deviation from standard procedures, to allow a jury to infer discriminatory intent in the promotion process, and denied summary judgment on the discrimination claim. However, the court granted summary judgment on the retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge claims, citing insufficient evidence (Hurt v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, No. 22-cv-337-JDR-SH (N.D. Okla. Jun. 2, 2025)).

D. Kan.: Procedures were bypassed during fire department’s promotion process. A former training officer of a city’s fire department claimed that she was unfairly denied a promotion to division chief, a position filled by four male candidates following a streamlined interview process that deviated from its requirement that applicants have the minimum rank of captain. The employee sued the city, alleging gender discrimination under Title VII. The deputy fire chief, who was on the interview panel, had allegedly made previous derogatory comments about women. The city moved for summary judgment, asserting that the promotions were based on objective interview scores. However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the influence of the deputy fire chief’s alleged gender bias on the interview process and the decision-making. The court noted procedural irregularities, such as the deviation from standard hiring practices, and the circumvention of the human resources department during the promotion process. Because of these irregularities, and the deputy’s disproportionately low scores for the former employee and his derogatory comments about women, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the city’s explanation pretextual. The motion was denied (Hack v. City of Topeka, Kansas, No. 2:23-cv-02410-JAR (D. Kan. May 30, 2025)).

D.D.C.: Amtrak ‘Officer of the Year’ alleged intimidation, differential treatment. An Amtrack police officer, who had previously been recognized for her exemplary service—including winning “Officer of the Year” in 2018—alleged she faced negative employment actions, including unwarranted discipline and termination, after reporting “intimidation and differential treatment” by one of her immediate commanders. The officer sued Amtrak alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA). Amtrak moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the allegations were “implausible, speculative, and unsupported.” The court, however, found that the employee had sufficiently pleaded claims of discrimination under Title VII, the DCHRA, and Section 1981, as well as retaliation under Section 1981, allowing these claims to proceed. However, the court dismissed the retaliation claims under Title VII and the DCHRA due to statutory filing limitations (Richardson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, No. 1:24-cv-02517-SLS (D.D.C. Jun. 3, 2025)).

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination Procedure Retaliation Discharge PublicEmployees