Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments of noted involving claims of race discrimination, (Jun 18, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

E.D. Mich.: Employee was fired because of inauthentic doctor’s note and behavior. A Black assembly plant employee with type 2 diabetes periodically took time off for her condition. After an illness-related absence, her employer requested a doctor’s note. The employee submitted two notes, which were insufficient. She then submitted a revised medical note that the employer believed was inauthentic. After a contentious meeting with her union steward and a labor representative, the employee was terminated pursuant to the company’s workplace conduct policies. She sued alleging among other things race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Granting the employer’s summary judgment motion, the held the employee failed to show she was treated differently than a similarly situated non-Black employee (Franklin v. FCA US, LLC dba Chrysler Group LLC Warren Truck Assembly Plant, No. 2:24-cv-10887-BRM-CI (E.D. Mich. May 14, 2026)).

M.D. Pa.: Wrongful termination claim survived due to fact issues regarding retaliation. A dental assistant sued her employer under Title VII and the PHRA alleging she was passed over for a new position and wrongfully terminated in violation of Title VII and state law. The dental assistant was studying to be a registered dental hygienist (RDH) and her employer stated it would hire her after she passed the required examinations. Although she failed the exam five times, her employer still supported her. She applied for the hygienist position notwithstanding the exam issue, but her employer hired another candidate who was more qualified. The dental assistant admitted that she was not qualified for the position given that she had not yet obtained her certification. After she emailed management and HR regarding alleged race discrimination she was offered a severance package, which she declined, and was later terminated. She sued her employer, which moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on the denied role claim because the employee lacked certification when the job was filled. The court also denied the motion on the termination claim because it found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether she engaged in protected activity, whether her termination was an adverse employment action, and whether the causation element of her retaliation claim could be satisfied (Orner v. Keystone PC Holdings LLC t/a Smiles for Keeps, No. 3:24-cv-02278-MEM (M.D. Pa. May 26, 2026)).

D.R.I.: Discrimination claim failed for lack of pretext, retaliation claim advances. An African-American computer scientist who worked for the U.S. Navy since 2001 alleged that supervisors imposed a performance improvement plan, downgraded evaluations, and denied training and additional compensation after prior EEO complaints. The employee sued the Navy, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The employer moved for summary judgment on both claims and the court held that the performance improvement plan constituted an adverse employment action. It also found the employee established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. The employer offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons based on her documented performance issues, inability to complete tasks and assignments in a timely manner, and timecard discrepancies. The court found no evidence these reasons were pretext for racial bias and granted summary judgment as to the discrimination claim. However, the court held that temporal proximity and her supervisors’ subsequent behaviors and patterns supported a prima facie retaliation claim and denied summary judgment on that claim (Jones v. Cao, No. 1:22-cv-00418-JJM-AEM (D.R.I. June 9, 2026)).

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge