Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments of note involving claims of race discrimination, (May 21, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D. Minn.: Mental health specialist’s safety violation supported termination decision. A Black mental health specialist employed by a residential care provider was terminated after a vulnerable adult under his supervision ingested windshield washer fluid and required hospitalization and dialysis. The employer’s investigation, supported by surveillance video and witness statements—including the vulnerable adult’s own statement—concluded that the employee “failed to provide adequate supervision” and violated the company’s adult “Awake Overnight Protocol.” After his termination, the employee sued alleging race discrimination under Title VII. The court granted summary judgment, holding that the employer articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge based on gross negligence and that the employee failed to produce evidence of pretext because he identified no similarly situated comparators and offered only speculation regarding disparate treatment and investigative bias (Daramola v. Dungarvin Minnesota, LLC, No. 24-CV-00761 (KMM/ECW) (D. Minn. Apr. 23, 2026)).

S.D. Tex.: Truck driver’s insubordination explained termination. A Black truck driver, who had worked for a construction company for several years, was asked to haul equipment between job sites. When he disputed unpaid travel time to his home, his supervisor told him the company would not pay for it, but that he would follow up with the company. Rather than wait for confirmation from the supervisor, the driver called an office administrator about his hours. When his supervisor called him back later, the driver hung up on him and ignored return calls. The company then terminated him for insubordination. The driver sued the company, alleging race discrimination under Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The employer moved for summary judgment. Grant the motion, the court found the employer offered a legitimate reason—the driver’s insubordination—and the driver failed to provide evidence of pretext (Woods v. Johnson Construction Clearing, LLC, No. 4:23-cv-03611 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2026)).

W.D. Tex.: Legitimate policy violations defeated discrimination, retaliation claims. A Black design associate alleged race discrimination and retaliation after his employer terminated him following a May 2023 trip to Costa Rica. The employer determined he took leave without supervisor approval and falsely claimed he performed work while abroad, which was supported by an internal investigation showing no device activity and by his own emails acknowledging unapproved leave. Prior to the trip, he had requested assistance with his workload, including training, mentoring, and shadowing, but during an April 2023 meeting with management and HR, he “questioned preferential treatment given to family members of management,” and claimed he was treated differently as the Black employee or “difficult black character.” After his termination, he sued his employer under Title VII and Section 1981. Granting his employer’s motion for summary judgment, the court held the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because his proposed comparators were not similarly situated as they engaged in different or less serious misconduct and held different roles while the employee violated both attendance and integrity policies. The court further held that, although the employee established a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer articulated legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for termination—unapproved absence and dishonesty during an investigation—and the employee failed to show pretext or but-for causation (Henderson v. Oncor Electric Delivery Co., LLC, No. 1:24-cv-841-RP (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2026)).

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation