A White former high school psychologist failed to show that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her race and disability when, in part, a co-worker allegedly referred to her as “Karen,” a federal judge held Tuesday.
The incident cited in D’Aiello v. Freeport High Schools occurred in 2021, when the plaintiff claimed that she and another White employee were greeted by an assistant principal’s secretary, who said: “Here comes Karen 1 and Karen 2.” The plaintiff understood “Karen” to be a derogatory term for White women and raised the issue with leadership.
Per court documents, a meeting was held afterwards in which the secretary allegedly mimicked the plaintiff’s way of speaking and mannerisms, which the plaintiff perceived to be related to her disability. The plaintiff asked the secretary to stop, which she did. The secretary also apologized for the “Karen” remark.
As the meeting progressed, however, parties to the conversation expressed disagreement about whether the term represented a racial remark. At that point, the meeting “began to devolve.”
The plaintiff later filed a Title VII complaint against school officials and asked Freeport School District to follow up on name calling and aggression but did not check a box on the complaint intake form indicating that race formed a basis of her complaint. The district conducted an investigation and issued a report concluding that the conduct did not meet the criteria for harassment.
The plaintiff resigned in 2024, stating in a letter to the school that she felt ignored and dismissed by leadership and claiming she had been mistreated by both the secretary and the assistant principal for whom the secretary worked. By that time, she had already filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York state laws.
The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff’s federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on her state claims.
Specifically, Judge Joan Azrack of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York wrote that the Title VII claim failed as a matter of law because she could not identify any adverse action that occurred as a result of the alleged conduct.
The plaintiff cited harm such as emotional distress and expenses for medication and leave. But such effects do not themselves constitute actionable adverse actions under the harm standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, in which the high court said that plaintiffs must show “some harm” regarding employment as a result of discriminatory action, Azrack held.
The judge added that the “Karen” comment, along with similar remarks cited by the plaintiff, were not adverse actions because they did not materially affect her employment. Similarly, the judge held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the district did not conduct a proper investigation into the behavior.
“Although the remarks may have been ‘unpleasant’ to her, that alone does not constitute a materially disadvantageous change in employment sufficient to qualify as an adverse action,” Azrack said.
Muldrow eliminated federal courts’ elevated standards requiring discrimination plaintiffs to show “significant” harm as a result of alleged discriminatory conduct. While some legal experts have questioned whether the case will lead to an influx of claims stemming from workplace slights and similar injuries, federal courts have expressed some hesitancy to extend Title VII’s protections to cover injuries that do not lead to materially adverse outcomes.
For instance, a U.S. Department of Energy lab operator prevailed in a case brought by a Christian employee resource group, which alleged that the employer unlawfully revoked its sponsorship of the ERG over policy disagreements. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in that case held that the ERG failed to show its members faced any changes in employment status as a result of the withdrawal.
And in March, the 1st Circuit held that a performance improvement plan was not in and of itself a discriminatory act, as the PIP merely provided the plaintiff an opportunity to correct unsatisfactory performance rather than altering the terms and conditions of her employment.
As far as offensive comments are concerned, however, courts may rule differently depending on specific factual circumstances. Notably, the 5th Circuit held in 2022 that a supervisor’s single use of a racial slur in reference to a discrimination plaintiff created a hostile work environment. The court said such remarks may be sufficiently severe — taken into consideration with the totality of the circumstances involved — to give rise to a viable claim.