42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits national origin discrimination, but an employer’s economic decision to retain H-2B workers to fulfill its visa obligations does not, without more, establish such discrimination.

Scott v. Omega Protein, LLC · filed 2008-07-16(a)(1)

We find Omega Protein met its burden of proving a legitimate, neutral reason for rehiring Ibanez and Zamora rather than Plaintiffs Scott and Thomas. Omega Protein was compelled to fulfill its obligations under the H-2B visa program or suffer financial consequences, and it had responsibilities to Ibanez and Zamora personally which had to be met.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from declining to renew a contract because of an employee’s national origin; the claim requires evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that discrimination motivated the decision.

Ilozor v. Hampton University · filed 2008-07-23(a)(1)

Even viewing the evidence--in particular, Grant’s remark that Chance received a PTT position because she was a “good American lady,” (J.A. at 415), who was younger than Ilozor--in the light most favorable to Ilozor, a reasonable jury simply could not conclude that Hampton’s decision not to renew Ilozor’s contract was based on his national origin and/or age, rather than the problems with his performance and his difficulty working in Hampton’s collaborative environment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge because of national origin, including Chinese ancestry; citizenship or alienage alone is not national origin.

Liu v. BASF Corp. · filed 2009-03-16(a)(1)

“National origin” is not synonymous with alienage or citizenship. ... What Title VII prohibits in Mr. Liu’s case is discrimination against him because of his Chinese ancestry.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits an employer to consider an employee’s accent or spoken English when effective communication is reasonably related to job performance.

Tseng v. Florida a & M University · filed 2010-05-27(a)

However, an employee’s heavy accent or difficulty with spoken English can be a legitimate basis for adverse employment action where effective communication skills are reasonably related to job performance, as they certainly are in a teaching position.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not protect against discrimination based solely on a person’s regional heritage within a country.

Dollman v. Mast Industries, Inc. · filed 2010-08-17(a)(1)

Despite this inclusiveness, discrimination on the basis of a person’s regional heritage has typically been excluded from the coverage of “national origin.” ... Accordingly, because neither the undisputed facts nor the law support Dollman’s claims for national origin discrimination, those claims are dismissed.

A national origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails when the employee cannot show replacement by someone outside the protected class or provide facts supporting discriminatory motive.

Garza v. North East Independent School · filed 2011-01-28(a)(1)

However, Garza cannot prove that she was replaced by someone outside the protected class, namely someone not of Mexican origin. Moreover, her argument that she was the victim of discrimination based on national origin is nothing more than a subjective belief—she provides no facts to reinforce her belief. Thus, she has failed to meet her burden of production, as well as her burden of persuasion.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts plausibly connecting the alleged employment discrimination to national origin; identifying an employee as white does not establish national origin.

Clemmons v. Hawaii Medical Services Ass'n · filed 2011-01-28(a)

Clemmons points to no allegations suggesting that the disparate treatment or adverse action he allegedly faced was based on his national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee claiming national origin discrimination to show different treatment from similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Liu v. BASF Corporation · filed 2011-02-14(a)(1)

Liu has not established that BPS gave different treatment to similarly situated employees who were not members of his protected class, and thus he has not established a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a national origin discrimination claim based on an employee’s lack of membership in a particular national origin group.

Turner v. NYU HOSPITALS CENTER · filed 2011-03-04(a)

Alleging discrimination based upon another’s membership in a protected class is an awkward construction of a Title VII claim. Nevertheless, it is permitted.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances supporting an inference of national origin discrimination.

De La Cruz v. City of New York · filed 2011-04-07(a)(1)

In sum, none of the scattered remarks that De la Cruz cites suggests that the circumstances surrounding his demotion reflect discrimination against him on national origin grounds.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits national-origin discrimination, but a Spanish-language job requirement alone does not establish discriminatory intent.

Naficy v. Illinois Department of Human Services · filed 2011-04-22(a)

In short, IDHS’s Spanish language requirement appears to be a legitimate, nondiscriminatory job qualification, and is not reasonably interpreted as direct evidence of discriminatory animus.

A national-origin discrimination claim based on a refusal to hire fails when the employer gives supported, nondiscriminatory reasons and the applicant does not show they are pretextual.

Othman v. City of Country Club Hills · filed 2012-03-01(a)(1)

Othman has set forth a prima facie case of discrimination, and the City has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Othman. ... Given this state of the record, Ware’s explanation has some basis in fact and thus does not support an inference of pretext.

An employer can rebut a prima facie claim of national origin discrimination by showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging the employee.

Barucic v. Titan Tire Corp. · filed 2012-03-14(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Defendant has satisfied its burden to put forth a nondiscriminatory reason for the termination of Plaintiffs employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits national origin discrimination in employment; workers can state a disparate treatment claim by plausibly alleging adverse action and more favorable treatment of similarly situated workers outside their protected class.

Fulford v. Alligator River Farms, LLC · filed 2012-03-14(a)(1)

For the reasons stated above, the court finds that plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of disparate treatment in violation of Title VII, and defendant’s motion as to this part is DENIED.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits refusing to hire someone because of national origin; an applicant challenging stated nondiscriminatory reasons must show they were pretextual.

Hernandez v. Wilsonart International, Inc. · filed 2012-04-16(a)(1)

Under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a). ... Hernandez failed to present evidence that the reasons proffered by Wilsonart were pretextual.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not treat local residence in St. Croix alone as a protected national origin.

Vitalis v. Sun Constructors Inc · filed 2012-05-31(a)(1)

Applying this definition of “national origin” to the present case, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that local residents of St. Croix do not constitute a protected class based on their national origin.

An employee’s accent alone does not establish national origin discrimination under Title VII, but it may be evidence of such discrimination.

Baltazar v. Shinseki · filed 2012-06-25(a)(1)

Her claim she was terminated solely because she spoke with an accent is not cognizable under Title VII. ... Evidence she spoke with an accent, however, may be relevant to her burden of proving she was terminated because of her national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) protects individuals from employment discrimination because they belong, or do not belong, to a particular ethnic group.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. PBM Graphics Inc. · filed 2012-06-28(a)(1)

Although PBM challenges the description of “non-Hispanie” as a protected class, courts interpret national origin discrimination broadly; Title VII protects individuals who are discriminated against because they are part (or not part) of a particular ethnic group.

A national origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) can survive dismissal when the complaint alleges that a qualified employee was terminated and replaced by someone outside her protected class.

Zayas-Ortiz v. Becton Dickinson Caribe, Ltd. · filed 2012-07-23(a)(1)

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating “against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... In the instant matter, the court finds Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts as to set forth a prima facie case of national origin discrimination. ... Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Title VII national origin discrimination claim is DENIED.

A national-origin demotion claim requires evidence linking the demotion to national origin; an email identifying affected employees as minorities does not itself show discriminatory motive.

Banthia v. Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. · filed 2012-08-22(a)(2)

But the email evinces no discriminatory motive: nothing in it suggests that the national origin of employees was the reason for the demotions, and the email could just as easily be read to show that the lab manager wanted to ensure that the demotion decisions were fair.

A national-origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails when the plaintiff does not present sufficient evidence that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual.

Rodriguez-Monguio v. Ohio State University · filed 2012-09-07(a)(1)

We conclude that Rodriguez’s claims of national-origin discrimination were properly dismissed on the ground that she failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext.

A national origin discrimination claim cannot survive summary judgment without evidence from which a jury could infer that the employer’s decision was motivated by discrimination.

Naficy v. Illinois Dep't of Human Services · filed 2012-09-18

There is thus neither direct nor circumstantial evidence in the record sufficient to create a triable issue of fact of discrimination under the direct method.

A national origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must allege facts supporting an inference that the employer acted because of the employee’s national origin.

Kiniropoulos v. Northampton County Child Welfare Service · filed 2013-01-11(a)(1)

The Amended Complaint fails to allege any facts that suggest the Plaintiff was terminated because of his national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits national origin discrimination, and allegations that similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s national origin received better treatment can support a claim.

Okeke v. Biomat USA, Inc. · filed 2013-02-25(a)

Okeke has successfully alleged a claim for discrimination on the basis of national origin under Title VII. Under this Title, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). ... Therefore, Okeke has made out a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a national origin discrimination claim based on an employer’s mistaken perception of an employee’s origin.

Henao v. Wyndham Vacations Resorts, Inc. · filed 2013-02-26(a)

Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Hawaii appellate courts have expressly ruled on whether a plaintiff may assert a “perceived as” claim under Title VII or chapter 378 of Hawaii Revised Statutes. This court reads Title VII and chapter 378 as permitting such claims.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge based on national origin under Title VII must show that he met his employer’s legitimate expectations at the time of termination.

Bibichev v. Triad International Maintenance Corp. · filed 2013-06-14(a)(1)

Therefore, the court finds that he has failed to demonstrate that at the time of his termination he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations, and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this basis.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence connecting an employment action to national origin to establish national origin discrimination.

Milione v. City University of New York · filed 2013-06-21(a)(1)

Plaintiff has given no evidence that Defendants changed his job title and responsibilities because Plaintiff is Italian American. ... Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of national origin discrimination under Title VII. I therefore grant summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs Title VII discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits national origin discrimination, and a failure-to-promote claim requires evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer discriminatory intent.

Zepeda v. Cook County · filed 2013-11-01(a)(1)

No reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence provided that Plaintiffs supervisors intentionally discriminated against her based on her national origin.

A remark about an employee’s accent does not establish national-origin discriminatory discharge without evidence connecting the remark to the firing.

Perez v. Board of Education of City of Chicago · filed 2014-09-29

The only evidence supporting her national-origin claim is the principal’s remark that Perez spoke with an accent, but this evidence is insufficient. Perez has not stated when the comment was made or suggested that it was related to her discharge. Without any context that would allow a rational jury to infer that the comment figured into her firing, she has not presented a trial issue of discriminatory discharge under the direct method of proof.

An employee’s heavy accent or difficulty with spoken English can justify an adverse employment action when effective communication is reasonably related to job performance.

Fong v. School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida · filed 2014-11-04(a)(1)

However, an employee's heavy accent or difficulty with spoken English can be a legitimate basis for adverse employment action where effective communication skills are reasonably related to job performance, as they certainly are in a teaching position.

Section 2000e-2(a) does not prohibit a tribal hiring preference based on tribal affiliation as a political classification.

Eeoc v. Peabody Western Coal Company · filed 2014-11-19(a)

We conclude that Title VII does not prohibit differential treatment based on tribal affiliation, the political classification at issue here.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discrimination based on national origin; a discharged employee must plead facts plausibly connecting national origin to the discharge.

Santos v. Iron Mountain Film & Sound · filed 2014-11-25(a)(1)

Santos says that he emigrated from Honduras; Title VII does preclude discrimination on the basis of national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... Instead, he must plead facts that plausibly connect his national origin to his discharge. Id. Here, he has submitted nothing but the naked assertion that he was discharged because he is Honduran, and he has thus failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination.

A national origin discrimination claim requires evidence that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of her national origin.

Spence v. Foxx · filed 2014-12-30(a)(1)

The record contains no reference to her national origin, nor does it suggest that there was discrimination against Spence because of her national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discrimination based on an employer’s perception of an employee’s national origin, even if that perception is mistaken.

Arsham v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore · filed 2015-02-11(a)(1)

This Court agrees with the reasoning of these cases and finds that Arsham has stated a valid claim under Title VII of discrimination based upon her perceived national origin.

For a national origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), the qualification prong asks whether the employee can perform the job, not whether the employee has work authorization.

Abravanel v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Wordwide, Inc. · filed 2015-03-26(a)(1)

“Qualified” in this context does not relate to whether or not work authorizations or visas are required to occupy the position; but whether the employee has shown that he can satisfy and perform the requisites for the position.

Alleging that a non-Haitian coworker received a benefit denied to the plaintiff does not plausibly show national origin discrimination without facts showing they were similarly situated.

Mesias v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP · filed 2015-05-04

The allegation that a non-Haitian employee could “borrow” vacation days, while Plaintiff could not, also fails to render plausible an inference of discrimination. The Complaint alleges no facts demonstrating that Plaintiff was “similarly situated” to her non-Haitian colleague.

Section 2000e-2(a) protects people who can adequately identify themselves as Acadian or Cajun from national origin discrimination.

Bourgeois v. United States Coast Guard · filed 2015-12-17(a)

Upon review of the language of the statute itself, the uniqueness of those of Acadian or “Cajun” national origin, and the limited jurisprudence available on this issue, this Court concludes that, as a matter of law, those people who can adequately identify themselves as Acadians or “Cajuns” are sufficiently distinctive as to qualify for the protections of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) for purposes of national origin protection under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on religion or national origin.

Robles v. Agreserves, Inc. · filed 2016-01-27(a)

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee based on inter alia religion and national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a plausible claim of national origin discrimination; a bare assertion is insufficient.

Brzozowski v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission · filed 2016-02-25(a)(1)

Mr. Brzozowski has failed to allege a plausible claim of relief for discrimination on the basis of national heritage in violation of Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a) bars national origin discrimination in employment; a disparate treatment claim fails when the employer supports its legitimate reasons and the employee cannot show pretext or discriminatory animus.

Berry v. Coastal International Security, Inc. · filed 2016-03-15(a)

But because defendant has come forward with evidence to show that plaintiff was disciplined because of his poor job performance, and not for a discriminatory or retaliatory purpose, and plaintiff has failed to come forward with evidence to show that defendant’s stated reasons were either pretextual or tainted by improper animus, the Court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2 requires a national origin disparate treatment claimant to identify materially comparable employees treated more favorably or show a continuing need for the claimant’s services.

Fernandez v. Board of Regents of Nevada System of Higher Education · filed 2016-03-23

The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The individuals they identified as being similarly situated had materially different qualifications or held materially different positions at the university, and so were not, in fact, similarly situated to the plaintiffs.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin; a claim must plausibly connect the discrimination to a country of origin or ancestry.

Benjamin v. Sparks · filed 2016-03-23(a)(1)

Benjamin does not plausibly allege discrimination based upon a country from which his ancestors came; Thus, he fails to state a national-origin claim under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a national-origin discrimination claim to proceed when the employee alleges that the employer terminated him because of his national origin; a prima facie case need not be pleaded.

Garza v. Illinois Institute of Technology · filed 2018-01-02(a)(1)

Under this standard, Garza has alleged enough in support of his Title VII clam to give him the opportunity to see if he can find the evidence that he will need to prove his claim of national-origin discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a national origin discrimination claim to allege an adverse employment action because of the plaintiff’s national origin.

Montoya v. Atkcore International, Inc. · filed 2018-03-02(a)

Thus, because he does not allege that he experienced an adverse employment action due to his national origin, his discrimination claim fails.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1)’s protection against national origin discrimination encompasses ancestry.

Mukherjee v. The Childrens Mercy Hospital · filed 2018-03-06(a)(1)

Title VII does not specifically include “ancestry” as a protected category, but national origin encompasses ancestry.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits employment decisions motivated by national origin; a claim fails when the evidence cannot support an inference that the decision maker knew the applicant’s national origin or acted with discriminatory motive.

Oviedo v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2018-03-16(a)

Plaintiff has adduced no evidence, including his own testimony, from which a reasonable jury could find that Thomas knew or should have known about Plaintiff’s national origin and then infer a discriminatory motive.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a national-origin discrimination claim to proceed when the alleged facts plausibly support an inference of discrimination.

Thomas v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2018-04-09(a)(1)

Here, Thomas pleads sufficient facts, if accepted as true, to create a plausible inference of discrimination.

A national-origin discrimination claim cannot survive summary judgment when the employer’s legitimate reason for termination is unrebutted and no reasonable jury could find intentional discrimination.

El-Saba v. University of South Alabama · filed 2018-06-13(a)(1)

In light of the University’s unrebutted legitimate reason for El-Saba’s dismissal, no reasonable jury would find that he was terminated due to intentional discrimination.

A national origin discrimination claim does not require satisfactory job performance as an element.

Deppner v. Spectrum Health Care Resources, Inc. · filed 2018-09-11(a)(1)

Satisfactory performance, however, is not a necessary element of national origin discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits national origin discrimination against American employees, including discrimination against members of the majority.

Beck v. Figeac Aero N. Am., Inc. · filed 2019-06-27(a)

Granted, the Court is unaware of any binding authority that has addressed reverse discrimination in the context of national origin discrimination claims; courts have allowed Title VII reverse discrimination claims in other contexts and the Court concludes that the same reasoning applies here.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a national origin discrimination claim to proceed when the employee alleges that the employer took an adverse employment action because of the employee’s protected status.

Salgado v. Graham Enterprise Inc. · filed 2019-08-01(a)(1)

Instead, a plaintiff need only allege his employer took an adverse employment action against him because of his membership in a protected class. ... While Salgado’s allegations are fairly conclusory, they suffice here to allow Salgado to proceed on his discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that an employer discriminated because of sex or national origin.

Lindita Coku, M.D. v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2019-08-12(a)

Dr. Coku has not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that NYPH discriminated against her on the basis of gender or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits national origin discrimination in hiring; a plaintiff must offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional discrimination.

Thomas v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2019-09-05(a)(1)

Viewed in its totality, the record here would not permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Thomas suffered discrimination on the basis of his national origin or age.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a national-origin discrimination claim to proceed when a reasonable jury could find the employer’s stated reason for firing the employee pretextual.

Navarette v. Madison County Sheriff's Office · filed 2019-09-27(a)(1)

That said, there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the reasons proffered by Madison County for Navarrete’s termination were merely pretext for discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) bars national origin discrimination, but a question about citizenship or green card status alone is not evidence of it.

Igwe v. Salvation Army · filed 2019-10-23(a)(1)

The sole question at issue—whether Dr. Igwe was a citizen or had a green card—cannot be considered probative evidence of national origin discrimination for this reason.

A worker sufficiently pleads discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) by alleging that an employer denied medical treatment and required drug tests because of race or national origin while treating similarly situated workers more favorably.

Cain v. Continental Tire · filed 2020-01-15(a)(1)

Here, Cain claims he was injured at work and, because he is Black, was denied medical treatment and required to take drug tests. Cain claims that similarly situated non-Black employees were provided medical assistance when injured on duty and were not required to take a drug test. He further alleges that Defendant refused to pay for his medical treatment as a result of his race or national origin. Liberally construing the complaint in favor of Cain, the Court finds that he has sufficiently alleged discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981.

For a circumstantial national origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), the plaintiff must show different treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

CHO v. DUKE UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-01-21(a)(1)

In the absence of any evidence that individuals outside the protected class were treated differently in their employment, the facts submitted do not present an issue of fact that Plaintiff’s termination was based upon improper discrimination.

An employer’s documented, good-faith concern that an applicant’s accent-related communication difficulties make her less suited for a job requiring strong communication can defeat a national-origin discrimination claim.

Zu v. Avalon Health Care · filed 2020-03-23(a)(1)

The timing of the performance valuation thus provides factual support for Oliver’s belief that Plaintiff’s communication problems, including accent-related issues, made her less suitable for the RAC position than Holm. Hence, the belief was held in good faith at the time Oliver made the RAC decision.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a national origin harassment claim based on mocking a foreign accent even when the harasser does not know the employee’s specific national origin.

Dugandzik v. Nike, Inc. · filed 2020-03-30(a)(1)

Further, we reject Nike’s argument that because Dugandzic’s supervisor did not know that Dugandzic was Croatian she could not have discriminated against him based on his national origin. If she was mocking his “foreign accent,” it ... follows that she could be harassing him based on his national origin even if she did not know the specific national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin, but comments about an employee’s accent are not direct evidence of discrimination when discriminatory intent requires an additional inference.

Lin v. Henry Ford Health System · filed 2020-05-04(a)(1)

In sum, the comments about Lin’s language and accent made by his coworkers cannot be direct evidence of discrimination because they require an additional inference: that the comments did not reflect concern that Lin’s language abilities were negatively impacting his job performance, but instead showed an intent to discriminate against him because he was Chinese.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plausible connection between the challenged employment treatment and the employee’s protected characteristic.

CINTRON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-05-19(a)(1), (a)(2)

However, the Complaint does not plausibly allege that this treatment was because Plaintiff is Hispanic or a woman or both. Rather, her Complaint only plausibly alleges that this treatment was because Plaintiff had raised concerns about race discrimination at PAL.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires evidence connecting criticism of an employee’s English skills to national-origin bias to establish a hostile work environment.

Khalaf v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2020-08-31(a)

Therefore, we hold that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Fowler’s criticism of Dr. Khalaf’s English skills and other comments constituted national-origin discrimination.

A national origin discharge claim requires evidence that national origin caused the termination; derogatory remarks unconnected to the termination do not suffice.

Salgado v. Graham Enterprise Inc. · filed 2020-09-14(a)(1)

Without anything more, Scott’s derogatory remarks do not create a question of fact with respect to whether Salgado’s national origin caused his termination.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires evidence supporting an inference that an adverse employment action was motivated by discrimination based on a protected trait.

Casarella v. State of New York · filed 2020-10-01(a)

Most significantly, there is no evidence on the record even suggesting discriminatory animus on the part of Teliska or Rajasingham, the individuals responsible for the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.

Excluding international medical school graduates from a residency program does not, by itself, establish national-origin discrimination under Title VII.

Pouyeh v. Public Health Trust of Jackson Health System · filed 2020-10-22

In Pouyeh I, we held that Bascom Palmer’s alleged policy of excluding IMGs did not amount to discrimination based on national origin. ... And despite Pouyeh’s complaints, we are not persuaded that Pouyeh I and Pouyeh II were wrongly decided or that his allegations in this case warrant a different result. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Pouyeh’s claims under Counts IX and X.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees because of national origin, including ancestry.

Toth v. California University of Pennsylvania · filed 2012-01-09(a)

Title VII prohibits a covered employer from discriminating against an employee because of his or her “national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Supreme Court has construed the term “national origin” broadly enough to prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s ancestry.

A national origin discrimination claim must allege facts supporting a plausible inference that national origin motivated an adverse employment action.

Molina v. Harvard Maintenance · filed 2021-01-04(a)

Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy federal pleading rules because it does not contain facts suggesting that any adverse action was taken because of her national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discrimination based on Chinese heritage as national origin discrimination.

Ma v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Company · filed 2021-02-12(a)(1)

The Court understands Ms. Ma’s assertion of discrimination based on her Chinese “heritage” to allege a claim of national origin discrimination, given that Ms. Ma’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination included a national origin claim (Dkt. Nos. 2, ¶ 51; 14-1, at 1; 20-1, ¶ 51).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits termination because of national origin, and a claim must allege facts supporting a plausible inference that national origin caused the termination.

England v. Ahoskie Housing Authority · filed 2021-03-08(a)(1)

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . national origin[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). As with the ADEA, a plaintiff pleading a Title VII claim is not required to plead a prima facie case of discrimination, but is “required to allege facts to satisfy the elements of a cause of action created by that statute’—here, that (1) Plaintiff was terminated and (2) the termination was because of his national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits hiring discrimination based on national origin, but graduation from a foreign medical school alone does not establish a protected class.

Ali v. Westchester Medical Center · filed 2021-03-17(a)(1)

Graduation from a foreign medical school does not create a class of persons protected by Title VII or the NYSHRL.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts supporting an inference of national origin discrimination in a failure-to-hire claim; a question about an applicant’s origin years earlier is insufficient by itself.

Soboyede v. KLDiscovery · filed 2021-03-23(a)

The allegations in the complaint simply do not give rise to an inference of national origin discrimination. Indeed, Denzer’s such question in August 2014 is insufficient to plausibly state a claim that KLD refused to hire him on May 4, 2017 or thereafter based on his national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge because of national origin; a complaint must allege facts plausibly connecting the discharge to national origin.

Liu v. Eaton Corporation · filed 2021-05-03(a)(1)

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . national origin[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... In sum, plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim based upon national origin discrimination, on a theory of either plaintiff’s alleged accent or status as American.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not require a plaintiff alleging national origin discrimination to identify a particular country of origin.

RODRIGUEZ v. CP DEVELOPMENT, INC · filed 2021-07-19(a)(1)

Defendants argue that he has failed to allege his country of origin. However, they cite no authority that this is a necessary element of national origin discrimination. In fact, regulations and case law are to the contrary.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employers from discriminating in compensation or other terms and conditions of employment because of race or national origin.

Maine v. Azar · filed 2021-08-16(a)(1)

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against “any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) bars termination based on race or national origin; a claim fails when the evidence cannot support a reasonable finding that either trait played a material role.

Xiong, Brian v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System · filed 2022-01-21(a)(1)

Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiff has not put forth sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Xiong’s race or national origin played a material role in his termination.

A Brazilian employee’s allegations that comparable non-Brazilian coworkers received better accounts and pay can plausibly state a national origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

SANZI v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC. · filed 2022-03-02(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and resolving all inferences in his favor, as the Court must do at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim of national origin discrimination under Title VII against XPO.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a national origin discrimination claim based on denied meal and rest breaks when similarly situated employees outside the protected group received those breaks.

Hukman v. Terrible Herbst Inc. · filed 2022-03-30(a)(1)

She has therefore alleged that similarly situated individuals outside her protected group were treated more favorably than her regarding being denied meal and rest breaks. I deny Terrible’s motion to dismiss Hukman’s first cause of action based on this alleged adverse employment action.

Title VII national origin discrimination requires evidence that an employee’s ancestry caused adverse employment treatment; alleged mistreatment based on immigration status does not establish it.

Jablonski, Jacek v. Beloit Health System Inc · filed 2022-04-28(a)(1)

Here, plaintiff has not even offered a stray comment, much less actual evidence, upon which a reasonable jury could infer an animus by anyone associated with BHS because the plaintiff is Polish; and he has certainly produced no evidence that anyone with authority to terminate him at BHS did so because of his national origin.

Section 2000e-2 permits a failure-to-hire claim to proceed when comments about an applicant’s language skills support an inference of national-origin discrimination.

Chris v. Kang · filed 2022-05-03(a)(1)

Under Title VII it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because of their “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. ... The intent to discriminate finds support in the express remarks Plaintiff alleges Defendants made about his language skills. ... The Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII claim against Defendant Village Church.

A supervisor’s comment showing national origin bias shortly before an employee’s discharge can support a plausible claim of discriminatory discharge under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Olarewaju v. Allied Universal · filed 2022-08-01(a)(1)

Taken together, improper animosity evident in a comment made to a plaintiff by his supervisor almost immediately before he was fired is enough to plead improper discriminatory animus based on national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a national origin discrimination claim based on an employer’s mistaken perception of an employee’s national origin.

ESPINA v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO · filed 2022-08-15(a)(1)

The City contends only that dismissal is proper because no such cause of action exists; however, a cause of action based upon perception of national origin does exist.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts supporting a plausible inference that national origin motivated an adverse employment action.

McKenzie v. Big Apple Training Inc. · filed 2022-11-17(a)

Because Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing that her national origin was a motivating factor in any adverse action, the complaint does not state a Title VII claim for national origin discrimination.

A national origin discrimination claim can survive dismissal when the plaintiff plausibly alleges an employment relationship, termination, and facts supporting an inference of discriminatory motive.

Desta v. Pompeo · filed 2022-11-30(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has “plead[ed] sufficient facts to show a plausible entitlement to relief,” Rodriguez, 922 F. Supp. 2d at 17, regarding her claim that the defendant discriminated against her based upon her national origin, and the Court must therefore deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII national origin discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a national origin discrimination complaint to plausibly connect the adverse employment action to discriminatory intent.

Baez v. Amazon Fulfillment · filed 2023-03-07(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged circumstances giving rise to an inference that national origin discrimination was, in part, a motivating factor in her termination.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits adverse employment decisions based on race or national origin; a discrimination claim requires evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the protected trait motivated the decision.

Kande v. Luminis Health Doctors Community Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2023-03-13(a)

Accordingly, when viewing the record most favorably to Kande, no evidence supports a reasonable inference that Luminis treated Kande adversely on account of her race or national origin. Thus, summary judgment is granted in Luminis’ favor as to Counts I & II.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits national origin discrimination, but conclusory allegations about an employee’s heritage or accent cannot sustain a claim without evidence supporting discrimination.

Miguleva v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources · filed 2023-04-25(a)

Even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court determines no reasonable jury could properly find she was discriminated against based on her national origin.

A plaintiff relying on a comparator to prove national origin discrimination must provide evidence of the comparator’s national origin.

Palomo v. Action Staffing Solutions, Inc. · filed 2023-07-05(a)(1)

And because Plaintiff has provided no evidence of Linda Tyquiengco’s national origin, Linda Tyquiengco cannot serve as a valid comparator in the context of Plaintiff’s national origin disparate treatment claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment action because of an employee’s national origin; comments that do not refer to national origin may be insufficient to show discriminatory motive.

Vidal-Hallett v. School of the Art Institute of Chicago · filed 2023-07-10(a)

Two oblique comments that make no mention of Vidal-Hallett’s national origin cannot support an inference that SAIC took its actions for discriminatory rather than legitimate reasons.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employers from discriminating in employment terms because of religion or national origin.

Alfonso v. Community Bridges Incorporated · filed 2023-08-02(a)(1)

The first two claims are governed by Title VII, which “makes it ‘an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 63 (1986) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from discriminating in compensation or other terms of employment because of an individual’s national origin.

Kozlowski v. University of Louisville · filed 2023-08-25(a)(1)

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting an inference of discriminatory motive; a probationary employee may not be similarly situated to a permanent employee.

Kane v. Advanced Care Staffing, LLC · filed 2023-09-06(a)(1)

Probationary and permanent employees often are not similarly situated for purposes of Title VII claims.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits national origin discrimination in hiring; an intentional discrimination claim requires evidence that the employer knew the applicant’s national origin.

Lapotsky v. McCarthy · filed 2023-09-28(a)

First and foremost, Lapotsky does not point to any evidence in the record that Defendant knew of Lapotsky’s German national origin. This alone is dispositive.

Section 2000e-2 requires evidence supporting an inference that an adverse employment action was based on race or national origin.

RIVERA v. PRA HEALTH SCIENCES · filed 2023-10-24(a)(1)

In turn, I find that Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that her termination was premised on either race or national origin.

Under the indirect proof framework, a national origin termination claim fails without evidence that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class was treated differently.

Suarez v. Southern Carlson · filed 2023-10-27(a)(1)

Suarez also has not produced admissible evidence demonstrating he was treated differently than a similarly situated employee outside the protected class. ... Absent evidence of a comparator, Suarez’s claim fails.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers material changes to job duties and opportunities when they are plausibly alleged to result from national origin discrimination.

Reyna v. Epiroc Drilling Solutions LLC · filed 2023-11-30(a)(1)

Inferior responsibilities, lack of overtime opportunity, and removal from job duties, even for short periods of time, are all material and tangible financial losses or significant losses of responsibility. ... Reyna’s allegations are very similar to those in Cicalese, and therefore, Reyna has sufficiently alleged that Epiroc took adverse action against him because of his Hispanic national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts connecting an adverse employment action to national origin; a conclusory allegation does not state a discrimination claim.

Torres v. Jade Management Inc. · filed 2024-01-19(a)

Torres does not alleged any facts establishing that his national origin had anything to do with his firing.

A Title VII national-origin claim is unlikely to succeed at the preliminary injunction stage when the current record shows a neutral reason for the challenged action rather than discriminatory motive.

Giri v. National Board of Medical Examiners · filed 2024-02-23(a)(1)

The primary stumbling block to Dr. Giri’s claims—under both Title VII and § 1981—is that the current record does not indicate that the Board’s actions were motivated by ethnicity or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin, but a claim fails without evidence that national origin motivated the challenged action.

Subotic v. Jabil, Inc. · filed 2024-02-27(a)(1)

Here, the court did not err in granting summary judgment to Jabil on Subotic’s discrimination claims under Title VII and the FCRA. First, the record shows that Holton was unaware of his national origin when she disciplined him for failure to carry out his on-call duties.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence connecting an adverse employment action to a protected trait; invoking Native American heritage when requesting an exemption from a uniformly applied policy does not establish that connection.

TOWNSEND JR. v. COUNTY OF MERCER · filed 2024-02-29(a)(1)

But Townsend’s invocation of his heritage as a basis for refusing to submit to COVID-19 testing is not evidence that the County terminated his employment because of his heritage, as it is undisputed that the County applied the Policy equally to all employees.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts connecting the challenged employment conduct to the employee’s race or national origin.

Jaiyeola v. Apple, Inc · filed 2024-03-27(a)(1)

As the Court explained in its TRO Orders, a common requirement to prevail on claims arising under Section 1981, Title VII, and FEHA, is presenting facts directly showing discrimination or facts by which a court may infer discrimination, i.e., that similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably. ... The Court finds that the FAC is devoid of facts connecting the alleged conduct to Jaiyeola’s race or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discrimination based on a mistaken belief about an employee’s national origin.

ESPINA v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO · filed 2024-03-28(a)(1)

Although the Court recognizes that claims based on a mistaken belief or perception of national origin are actionable under Title VII (see ECF No. 21 at 5-6), there does not appear to be a mistaken belief about Plaintiff’s race and/or national origin.

A national origin discrimination claim based on a rejected job application is sufficiently pleaded when the allegations give the employer notice of the claim.

Bediako v. Board of Trustees of the University Of Illinois · filed 2024-04-16(a)(1)

As for Bediako’s allegation that her staff nurse application was denied on account of her national origin, that allegation is clearly included in the Charge and is sufficiently pled in the complaint.

A plaintiff alleging national origin discrimination under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) must show that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Sanchez v. Alcon Vision, LLC · filed 2024-05-15(a)(1)

In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a prima facie case for national origin discrimination because he has not shown that he was terminated under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) bars national origin discrimination in employment; a disparate treatment claim fails at summary judgment when the employee cannot show a triable issue that the employer’s legitimate reasons were pretextual.

Hukman v. Snackers Sinclair, Inc. · filed 2024-06-12(a)

Hukman provides neither, meaning she fails to raise a triable issue of fact that Harman’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. ... Accordingly, Harman’s motion for summary judgment on her Title VII claim of discrimination based on national origin is granted.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a national origin discrimination claim to proceed when alleged comments and unequal treatment plausibly connect the treatment to national origin.

NAGGAYI v. EMR USA HOLDING, INC. · filed 2024-06-26(a)(1)

The comments made directly to Plaintiff plausibly show that her treatment was related to her race and/or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits national origin discrimination in employment; when an employer offers a nondiscriminatory reason for its action, an employee relying on circumstantial evidence must produce admissible evidence from which a jury could find that reason was pretextual and the employer intentionally discriminated.

Buitrago v. D.C. Department of Health · filed 2024-07-03(a)(1)

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Mr. Buitrago’s discrimination claim based on national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits adverse changes to employment terms because of national origin, and a plausible allegation of that connection suffices at the pleading stage.

Abdelhamid v. Lane Construction Corporation · filed 2024-08-12(a)(1)

The court next considers whether Mr. Abdelhamid has plausibly alleged that Lane took the above adverse employment actions “because of” his national origin, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and concludes that he has.

In this Virginia district court, a race or national-origin discrimination complaint failed for insufficient allegations of satisfactory performance and favorable treatment of comparable employees.

Dimaano v. Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation · filed 2024-08-13(a)(1)

Mr. Dimaano fails to plausibly allege elements two or four of a claim for racial or national origin discrimination, and thus fails to state a claim under Counts Four and Five. First, for the reasons discussed in Section IIJ.A.1.b., supra, Mr. Dimaano fails to plausibly allege that at the time of his discharge, he was performing at a level that met VCBR’s legitimate expectations, and therefore fails to plead satisfactory job performance. Second, Mr. Dimaano fails to allege facts to plausibly show that Defendants treated similarly-situated individuals of non-Asian or non-Filipino descent more favorably.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits national origin discrimination; language itself is not a protected category, but linguistic characteristics associated with a national origin group may support a claim.

Villanueva v. Weber-Stephen Products LLC · filed 2024-09-06

While language itself is not a protected category under Title VII, linguistic characteristics are often associated with a national origin group and may be the basis for national origin discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a discrimination claim to proceed when allegations plausibly link unequal treatment and termination to race or national origin.

KORTOR v. THE FOREST AT DUKE · filed 2024-09-30(a)

These allegations plausibly allege that Plaintiffs race and national origin directly resulted in her being treated differently from other employees and that she was specifically targeted for advetse treatment because of these characteristics, resulting eventually in her termination for pretextual reasons.

Section 2000e-2 permits a national origin discrimination claim to proceed when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find that national origin motivated an adverse employment decision.

Alford v. Wonderland Montessori Academy LLC · filed 2024-09-30(a)(1)

The evidence of Jiwani’s allegedly discriminatory statements about only wanting “her people” to work for her and her belief that Americans are lazy, as well as her alleged comments about not being able to handle Alford’s ADHD, would enable a reasonable jury to find that national origin, race, and disability discrimination were motivating factors for the adverse decisions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a plausible inference that an adverse employment action occurred because of a protected characteristic such as national origin.

Williams v. LSG Sky Chefs · filed 2024-10-04(a)(1)

Plaintiff, who does not identify his nationality, recounts interactions he had with LGS employees who were apparently of different nationalities from his, but those facts do not suggest that LGS subjected him to an adverse employment action because of his nationality.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that national origin caused a discharge; speculation about bias does not establish discriminatory termination.

Rivera v. Nestle USA Inc · filed 2025-02-21(a)(1)

Plaintiff must point to some evidence that Defendant actually fired him because of his national origin. ... Plaintiff offers no evidence of impermissible motivation for his termination. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he was wrongfully terminated based on his national origin. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits refusing to hire someone because of national origin, including when an employer plausibly uses visa status as a pretext for that discrimination.

KANZLER v. ROBERT BOSCH, LLC · filed 2025-04-10(a)(1)

In any event, Mr. Kanzler's complaint contains sufficient detail to state a plausible claim that Bosch's explanation was a pretext for discrimination based on national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts plausibly connecting an adverse employment action to national origin; a bare assertion of different treatment is insufficient.

Saintil v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2025-05-07(a)(1)

With the proper pleading standard in mind, Plaintiff’s mere assertion that he was treated differently than other non-Haitian employees is insufficient because it relies on vague and conclusory statements.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that national origin caused an employee’s discharge.

Robakidze v. Wild Investment Company dba Lifesport Tennis and Athletic Clubs · filed 2025-05-23(a)(1)

For the reasons already discussed, Robakidze has not met her burden to show that her national origin was the reason for her firing.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from terminating an employee because of race or national origin, and a claim may proceed when the complaint plausibly alleges that basis for termination.

YEWANDE v. INDIANA MATH & SCIENCE ACADEMY NORTH · filed 2025-05-27(a)(1)

Liberally construed, Mr. Yewande's allegations in the complaint are sufficient to plausibly assert a Title VII claim for discrimination on the basis of race and national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that national origin caused an adverse employment action.

Heredia v. LaPorte County · filed 2025-07-10(a)(1)

The question at summary judgment is whether the evidence, considered as a whole, would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Mr. Heredia’s Puerto Rican ancestry caused an adverse employment action.

A Title VII national origin failure-to-hire claim need not identify the plaintiff’s exact national origin, but it must allege facts plausibly connecting the hiring decision to national origin.

Nedlina v. Mayfield Branch, Cuyahoga County Public Library · filed 2025-08-08(a)(1)

Thus, this court finds that Plaintiff is not required to allege her exact national origin in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) to survive Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12). ... While a plaintiff need not allege facts that rule out all lawful bases for not hiring them, they must allege minimally sufficient facts that, if taken as true, would indicate national origin hiring discrimination was more likely than not the reason they were not hired.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts plausibly connecting adverse employment treatment to a protected characteristic; checking a national-origin box on a complaint form alone is insufficient.

PELENAH v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM · filed 2025-08-18(a)

That marked box is the only place in the entire Complaint where he asserts that his treatment and termination were based on his national origin, however, and checking the box on the form complaint without alleging any corresponding facts is insufficient to raise a plausible inference that his treatment and/or termination were due to his national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a national-origin discrimination claim when the alleged facts plausibly show that national origin was a motivating factor in an employment decision.

Wilkins v. Swinton Home Care, LLC · filed 2025-09-05(a)(1)

Her allegation that she was told she was terminated for certain masking and COVID testing behaviors for which other employees were not terminated, combined with numerous allegations of disparate treatment compared to non-Jamaican employees during her employment (e.g., bathroom access, telework arrangements), support an adequate (if not robust) inference that her alleged termination was “because of” her nationality.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a national-origin discrimination claim to proceed when the alleged treatment of an employee with a foreign accent supports a plausible inference that national origin caused his discharge.

Constantinescu v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. · filed 2025-09-17(a)(1)

At the pleadings stage, Plaintiff has alleged that he was regularly treated unfavorably or disregarded whereas other less qualified individuals without foreign accents were not.

A national-origin discrimination claim requires facts showing that the employee was qualified and that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Uminski v. Clark County Sheriff's Office · filed 2025-10-01(a)

Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead any facts that he was qualified for his job or that similarly situated non-Belarusians received more favorable treatment.

Section 2000e-2(a) protects against employment discrimination based on ethnicity as a form of national origin discrimination.

KHARTCHENKO v. THE AMERICAN ONCOLOGIC HOSPITAL, INC. · filed 2025-10-10(a)

Accordingly, ethnicity is a protected class under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers an employee’s discharge because of an interracial social relationship when the employee’s own race factors into the decision.

Whitney v. Greater New York Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists · filed 1975-09-30(a)(1)

Specifying as she does that she was discharged because she, a white woman, associated with a black, her complaint falls within the statutory language that she was “discharge [d] . because of [her] race.”

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because of the employee’s interracial marriage.

Gresham v. Waffle House, Inc. · filed 1984-05-21(a)

Accordingly, the Court follows Whitney and Holiday, supra, in holding that plaintiff has stated a claim under Title VII by alleging that she was discharged by her employer because of her interracial marriage to a black man.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits employment discrimination based on an employee’s association with people of a particular race or national origin.

Reiter v. Center Consolidated School District No. 26-JT. · filed 1985-10-11(a)

In light of these judicial and administrative decisions, I hold that discriminatory employment practices based on an individual’s association with people of a particular race or national origin are prohibited under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from refusing to hire someone because of an interracial marriage or association.

Don L. PARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-06-17(a)(1)

Where a plaintiff claims discrimination based upon an interracial marriage or association, he alleges, by definition, that he has been discriminated against because of his race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on an employee’s interracial association.

Chacon v. Ochs · filed 1991-12-23(a)(1)

This Court concludes that Title VII prohibits race conscious discriminatory practices, including discrimination based on interracial association.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a white employee to claim discrimination when her employer requires her to enforce racially discriminatory hiring or promotion practices that impair her right to associate with African-Americans.

Chandler v. Fast Lane, Inc. · filed 1994-11-15(a)(1)

However, by focusing on the “fail or refuse to hire” provision of § 2000e-2(a)(l), defendants’ argument misperceives the unlawful employment practice alleged by Chandler. ... Although the Court recognizes that Chandler’s Title VII claim is somewhat novel, it is of the opinion .that such - a claim, if proven, would state a cause of action under Title VII.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on an applicant’s interracial relationship.

Sims v. Montgomery County Commission · filed 1996-07-02

The law is well established that discrimination in employment based upon interracial marriage or interracial association is prohibited under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981a, 2000e through 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers employment discrimination based on an interracial relationship, but the employee must present evidence linking adverse treatment to that relationship.

Eperesi v. Envirotest Systems Corp. · filed 1998-03-23(a)(1)

Absent evidence that other comparable employees were treated differently, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant Envirotest engaged in a practice of discriminating against employees based on interracial relationships, or that Plaintiff Eperesi was in fact terminated for that reason. Accordingly, Envirotest is entitled to summary judgment on Counts III and VII of the complaint.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination because of an employee’s interracial relationship.

Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1998-09-24(a)(1)

In sum, Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment premised' on an interracial relationship.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on an employee's interracial relationship.

Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores · filed 1998-09-24(a)(1)

In sum, Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment premised on an interracial relationship.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment action based on an employee’s religious beliefs alone.

Peterson v. Wilmur Communications, Inc. · filed 2002-06-03(a)

Therefore, under Title VII, an employer can avoid liability for failing to reasonably accommodate religiously-motivated acts, but cannot avoid liability for taking an adverse employment action based on the employee’s pure beliefs; unaccompanied by acts.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; a complaint must allege facts connecting the challenged conduct to one of those characteristics.

Estate of Levinson v. Mucker · filed 2003-10-27(a)(1)

None of the facts alleged in Plaintiffs complaint, however, suggest that Defendants harassed or suspended Levinson or terminated his employment on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a failure-to-hire claim based on sexual identity to survive dismissal when the facts could show discrimination because of sex.

Schroer v. Billington · filed 2006-03-31(a)(1)

There are facts that Schroer could prove which would support her claim that the Library refused to hire her solely because of her sexual identity, and that in so doing, the Library discriminated against her “because of.. .sex.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee because of the employee’s association with a person of another race.

Holcomb v. Iona College · filed 2008-04-01(a)(1)

We resolve that question today, and hold that an employer may violate Title VII if it takes action against an employee because of the employee’s association with a person of another race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) protects employees from discrimination based on their association with a person of another race.

Bergerson v. New York State Office of Mental Health, Central New York Psychiatric Center · filed 2009-04-21(a)(1)

Plaintiff has established a sufficient association with a person of another race to be protected against discrimination on the basis of that association.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires allegations connecting challenged employment actions to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Galouch v. Maine Department of Professional & Financial Regulation · filed 2012-04-13(a)

The obvious problem with these allegations, taken individually or as a whole, is that they have nothing to do with Title VII. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against or classify an individual “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)(2).

Opposing a religious organization does not, by itself, establish an association with a protected class for a discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Lyman v. OASAS · filed 2013-02-26(a)(1)

Although he does speak out against the Roman Catholic Church and the way in which it has handled sexual abuse cases by the clergy, advocating against an organization does not make him associated with that organization for Title VII purposes.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a harassment or discharge claim to allege discrimination based on a protected trait.

Carter v. American Painting Janitorial Company · filed 2019-10-03(a)

Because the plaintiff does not allege, much less plausibly demonstrate, that she was treated differently on the basis of a protected trait, the complaint fails to state a claim under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts connecting alleged adverse treatment to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

O'Hara v. Board of Cooperative Education Services, Southern Westchester · filed 2020-03-16(a)(1)

Here, the SAC is devoid of any factual allegations suggesting discrimination based on Plaintiff’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an employment discrimination claim to connect the adverse action or harassment to a protected characteristic.

Burton v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2021-09-30(a)

In other words, Burton’s Title VII arguments require her to allege that an adverse action was taken, or that harassment occurred, because of a protected characteristic. She has not done so.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires discrimination because of the employee’s own race; advocacy for protected coworkers alone does not establish a race discrimination claim.

Frith v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. · filed 2022-06-28(a)(1)

Title VII's language, as discussed in Bostock, forecloses such a theory, which essentially replaces the textual "because of such individual's race" with the atextual "because of such individual's advocacy for protected individuals."

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; harassment unrelated to those characteristics does not violate it.

Changamire v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners · filed 2023-09-14(a)

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual because of such individual’s “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). ... Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any discrimination or harassment on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. ... That type of general harassment or unpleasant workplace dynamic does not fall within the limited protections of Title VII.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; a claim must allege facts connecting the challenged conduct to a protected trait.

Johnson v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2024-07-31(b)

Title VII provides in relevant part that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to . . . discriminate against[] any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(b). ... Mr. Johnson falls well short of stating a claim for hostile work environment or wrongful termination under Title VII. The complaint is silent as to whether Mr. Johnson belongs to a protected class, and Mr. Johnson pleads no factual allegations related to his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plausible connection between alleged mistreatment and the employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Russell v. Postmaster General Louis Dejoy · filed 2024-12-18(a)(1)

Significantly, Plaintiff has not even attempted to indicate that her perceived mistreatment was the result of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Section 2000e-2 requires a discrimination claim to allege facts linking the challenged treatment to race or another protected characteristic.

Nance v. McDonough · filed 2025-03-11

Nance does not allege any facts suggesting that he was discriminated against based on race or any other protected characteristic. ... His Title VII discrimination claims therefore are dismissed.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a Title VII discrimination claim to allege discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

(PS) Meckfessel-Poletti v. Workday, Inc. · filed 2025-08-25(a)(1)

Further, Plaintiff has not alleged that any discrimination occurred due to Plaintiff’s race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).