42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; an employee cannot establish discriminatory termination when the evidence shows that inability to perform the job caused the termination rather than race.

Brown, Laurette v. WI Dept. of Transportation · filed 2023-05-08(a)(1)

Brown’s Title VII claim fails as a matter of law because there is no dispute that Brown’s inability to perform the necessary functions of her job was the cause of her termination, not her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts connecting an employee’s discharge or disparate treatment to race to state a race discrimination claim.

Lucas v. Intercept Youth Services, Inc. · filed 2023-05-12(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that anyone involved in her termination made any discriminatory comments to or about her, instead simply asserting that other non-African American employees were neither disciplined nor terminated, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for discriminatory discharge and for disparate treatment on the basis of race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination complaint to allege facts supporting a plausible inference that the challenged treatment was based on race.

Snowden v. Oriental Trading Company, Inc. · filed 2023-05-16(a)(1)

However, the court cannot reasonably infer that circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of discrimination based on Plaintiff’s race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim over a suspension to proceed when a jury could find racial bias and pretext.

POWERS v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY · filed 2023-05-18(a)(1)

Thus Powers’s race discrimination claims regarding his one-day suspension will survive summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff must present evidence supporting an inference that an adverse employment action was taken because of race.

Bailey v. The TJX Companies, Inc · filed 2023-05-25(a)

Because Bailey has failed to adduce any evidence supporting that Bandanza treated Bailey adversely on account of race, she cannot make a prima facie showing.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that the employer discriminated because of race.

Harris v. Hiland Dairy Foods · filed 2023-06-02(a)(1)

These allegations do not support a reasonable inference that Hiland is liable for racial discrimination, nor do they provide fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for Plaintiff’s discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in employment, and a plaintiff relying on comparators must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

FITZGERALD v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION · filed 2023-06-27(a)

Having failed to present any proper comparator evidence, or any other evidence by which a reasonable factfinder could infer that Plaintiff’s termination was for a discriminatory reason, Plaintiff has not met his summary judgment burden with respect to the fourth prima facie element of his disparate treatment claim. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to this claim.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires factual support for satisfactory job performance and different treatment from similarly situated employees.

Wright-Hicks v. Tropical Smoothie Cafe LLC · filed 2023-07-06(a)(1)

As to the fourth element, Plaintiff offers only conclusory statements to support the allegation that she was treated differently than other similarly situated employees.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits an employer from discriminating based on race; a plaintiff must explain how the employer’s actions were discriminatory and caused harm.

Buhari v. Schoeneck Containers · filed 2023-07-12(a)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that “an employer may not discriminate based on ‘race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” Abrego v. Wilkie, 907 F.3d 1004, 1012 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)). ... The plaintiff has not explained how picking up bottles and cleaning instead of being a break person constitutes discrimination. ... It is not enough to notice allegedly discriminatory actions by an employer; a plaintiff must explain what the employer did to that plaintiff and how those actions damaged the plaintiff.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting the allegation of discrimination; a conclusory assertion alone does not state a claim.

Rollins v. Crump · filed 2023-07-21(a)(1)

But Rollins alleges no facts to support his conclusory statement that Defendants discriminated against him based on his race.

A Title VII race discrimination claim must allege facts supporting a reasonable inference of intentional discrimination.

BROWN v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANSIT CORPORATION · filed 2023-07-24

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims—even taken as true—do not permit this Court to infer that Plaintiff has been impermissibly discriminated against under Title VII.

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

Cusatis v. City of Niagara Falls · filed 2023-07-27(a)(1)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, makes unlawful employment practice because of the employee’s race, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

A Title VII race discrimination claim requires evidence of an adverse employment action and more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the plaintiff’s protected class.

McIntosh v. City of North Las Vegas · filed 2023-07-28(a)(1)

Even if McIntosh could show that his transfer from recruiting, removal from the honor guard, and rejection from special assignments were adverse employment actions, he fails to identify any similarly situated individuals who were not subjected to those adverse employment actions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race or color discrimination claim to proceed when the employee plausibly alleges harsher discipline than similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Chapman v. Maryland Department of State Police · filed 2023-08-08(a)(1)

Accordingly, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded claims for race and color discrimination and Defendant’s Motion is denied as to Counts I and Il.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from firing someone because of race; a discrimination complaint must allege facts connecting the firing to race.

Bolton v. Indiana State of · filed 2023-08-09(a)(1)

To state a claim for employment discrimination, Bolton needs to concisely summarize the events surrounding his termination and explain how that termination was connected to his race.

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff cannot use an employee with materially different duties and experience as a comparator.

Deirdre Baker v. JEA · filed 2023-08-28(a)

Remsen, to whom Baker points as a possible comparator, worked at JEA for thirteen more years than Baker and had different duties than Baker (despite sharing some work responsibilities with Baker). Remsen is therefore not a ... comparator for purposes of Baker’s prima facie case of race discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim to proceed when an employee plausibly alleges forced resignation while similarly situated employees of another race received less severe discipline for similar conduct.

Jones v. The City of Salisbury, Maryland · filed 2023-08-28(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff has satisfied the relaxed pleading standard for Title VII racial discrimination claims.

A Title VII race discrimination claim requires evidence linking an adverse employment action to race; under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must show that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class received better treatment.

Rankin v. Chicago Park District · filed 2023-09-18(a)(1)

Under this framework, Rankin’s race discrimination claims are a non-starter due to his inability to identify any similarly situated employee outside his protect class who was treated more favorably than him.

Allegations that an employee of another race received far more favorable treatment for comparable alleged misconduct can support a Title VII race discrimination claim at the pleading stage.

Edmondson v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2023-09-27

Further, Plaintiffs allege Nissan plausibly discriminated against them in a number of ways on account of their race in violation of Title VII. (Id. ¶ 151). At this stage of the litigation, the identified comparator, Bobby Moss, who, as alleged, actually brought a gun to the facility and received far more favorable treatment suffices. These claims will go forward.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a plausible inference that a failure to promote was motivated by race discrimination.

Hamilton v. Fulton County Schools · filed 2023-09-28(a)(1)

In other words, Ham- ilton alleged no specific facts from which we can infer reasonably that the hiring decision was motivated by unlawful race discrimi- nation.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination claim to plausibly connect an adverse employment action to the employee’s race.

Leffler v. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago · filed 2023-10-04(a)

More critically, Leffler’s amended complaint fails plausibly to allege that he was either harassed by his co-workers or terminated by his employer because of his race.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a racial discrimination claim to proceed when an employee alleges that she was denied a return to work while similarly situated employees of another race were treated more favorably.

Nelson v. Walmart · filed 2023-10-04(a)

Plaintiff alleges that she was treated differently on the basis of her race and not allowed to return to work while similarly situated white employees were treated more favorably. This meets the pleading standards for alleging a Title VII claim for racial discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment, including unequal pay and adverse job actions.

Birdo v. Graphic Packaging International · filed 2023-10-05(a)(1)

Liberally construing the Amended Complaint in his favor, the Court finds that Birdo has sufficiently alleged racial discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII against Graphic Packaging.

A race-discrimination complaint can pass initial screening when its allegations sufficiently address the elements of a Title VII claim.

Hargrove v. HCA · filed 2023-10-06(a)(1)

The Court is satisfied that Hargrove has pleaded sufficient facts to warrant service of her claims on HCA.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim to proceed when a similarly situated employee escaped discipline and a jury could disbelieve the employer’s stated reason for firing the plaintiff.

ONELY v. REDNER'S MARKETS, INC. · filed 2023-10-11(a)(1)

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor and evaluating the totality of the circumstances, a rational factfinder could conclude that, given Defendant’s failure to discipline McGrory at all for the same (or at least a similar) violation of company policy, its proffered nondiscriminatory reason for firing Plaintiff should not be believed.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment, and a complaint must allege facts that make such discrimination plausible rather than rely on the employee’s subjective belief.

Blount v. Red Robin · filed 2023-10-23(a)(1)

These allegations, taken as true, do not provide a plausible basis for a Title VII racial discrimination claim. Critically, the allegations are limited to the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not allege that she was treated differently from similarly situated individuals outside of her protected class.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits intentional race discrimination in employment, and a complaint must allege facts supporting a reasonable inference of race discrimination.

Irigoyen v. Hudson House Lakewood LLC · filed 2023-10-24(a)

Irigoyen has failed to plead a plausible Title VII claim for race discrimination. It is undisputed that Irigoyen is of Hispanic descent and therefore a member of a protected class. But he pleads insufficient facts for the court to draw the reasonable inference that he was a victim of race discrimination.

An employer is entitled to summary judgment on a Title VII race discrimination claim when the employee fails to show that the employer’s legitimate reason for demotion was a pretext for discrimination.

Bogle v. Alabama Law Enforcement Agency · filed 2023-11-01

As a result, Bogle has not met his pretext burden. ALEA is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Bogle’s Title VII claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination by employers, but a claim must allege facts that make the discrimination plausible.

BRENTLEY v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH · filed 2023-11-17(a)(1)

Under Title VII it is unlawful for employers to discriminate based on race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... It is devoid of any showing of a plausible claim for race discrimination. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim at Count I for violations of Title VII or the PHRA.

A race discrimination claim requires facts supporting a plausible inference that race motivated an adverse employment action.

Phillips v. Russ · filed 2023-12-05(a)(1)

She does not allege any facts suggesting that her race was a motivating factor or the but-for cause of any adverse employment action. Plaintiff mentions race only twice throughout the complaint and the bulk of her allegations appear to be asserting that she was terminated for filing a petition to decertify the union, not because of her race. Plaintiff therefore has not provided facts to suggest that, under Title VII or Section 1981, her employer discriminated against her on the basis of her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting an inference of race or color discrimination; alleging a pay disparity without facts showing that the better-paid employees were similarly situated is insufficient.

Nunez-Renck v. International Business Machines Corporation · filed 2023-12-06(a)(1)

And while she does allege that there was a pay disparity between her and non-minority employees, she pleads no facts that would enable the court to draw the reasonable inference that she and the non-minority employees were similarly situated.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence linking race to an adverse employment action.

Beardson v. Franciscan Alliance INC · filed 2023-12-20(a)(1)

Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact that race discrimination is linked to an adverse employment action by the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff presents no other arguments or evidence to support her race discrimination claim, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s race discrimination claim (Count I).

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a race discrimination and harassment claim to proceed when the complaint states such a claim.

Harris v. Variety Wholesalers · filed 2023-12-27(a)

In addition, the magistrate judge recommends allowing claims for employment discrimination against Variety Wholesalers to continue, because plaintiff states a claim for harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, and wrongful termination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (“Title VI”). Upon careful consideration of the M&R and the record in this case, the court finds no clear error in the determinations by the magistrate judge, and the court adopts the M&R.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim to proceed when disputed facts could let a jury find that an adverse employment action was motivated by race.

Clark v. Polk County School Board · filed 2024-01-10(a)(1)

If, as Plaintiff suggests, Defendant did not similarly misinform Ms. Rice, Dkt. 45 at 13, a rational trier of fact could find evidence of illegal discrimination. ... These genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge because of race; a race discrimination claim can proceed when the evidence raises a genuine dispute over whether the employer’s stated reason was pretext.

Burnett v. East Tallahatchie School District · filed 2024-01-11(a)(1)

Overall, the evidence presented in this matter is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Edwards’ and Defendant ETSD’s explanation is not the true reasoning for terminating Plaintiff Burnett, but rather pretext for race discrimination, thus Defendants’ motion is due to be denied concerning this claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee’s race discrimination claim to concern the employee’s own race; alleged differences in resources based on clients’ races do not establish such a claim.

CARTER v. DEVEREUX ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PA CIDDS · filed 2024-01-24(a)(1)

The assertion that resources were allocated between the two programs based on the racial makeup of the clients does not establish a claim of race discrimination under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a claim cannot survive summary judgment without evidence that race motivated the employer’s action.

Sandoval v. Franciscan Alliance Inc. · filed 2024-01-29(a)(1)

In summary, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of discriminatory intent behind Franciscan’s actions. As a result, Franciscan is entitled to summary judgment on Sandoval’s claim under Title VII.

A race discrimination claim must plausibly allege that an adverse employment action was motivated by race.

Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State Univ. · filed 2024-01-30(a)(1)

In any event, we agree with the district court that Ogbonna-McGruder failed to state a discrimination claim because she did not allege that any adverse employment action she experienced was motivated by discriminatory animus.

Coworkers in the plaintiff’s protected racial group cannot serve as comparators to show more favorable treatment in a race-discrimination claim.

Whitehorn v. Maverick Tube Corporation · filed 2024-02-08(a)(1)

Because they are part of the same protected group as Whitehorn, neither can serve as comparators for his race-discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination complaint to plausibly allege that race motivated the challenged employment action.

Taylor v. Alabama Power Co. · filed 2024-02-08(a)(1)

The undersigned agrees with the Defendants that the well-pleaded allegations in Taylor’s complaint fail to plausibly show that any of the Defendants’ alleged adverse actions were motivated by race or disability.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a claim based on different treatment must plausibly identify a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Mason v. Walmart Stores, Inc. · filed 2024-02-08(a)(1)

Absent a relevant comparator, Mason’s claim fails.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a discrimination claim cannot survive summary judgment without evidence that the employer’s stated reason for termination was pretextual.

Jackson v. Executive Management Services Inc · filed 2024-02-12(a)(1)

The record is devoid of any evidence of pretext here. Thus, EMS is entitled to summary judgment on Jackson’s discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race and sex discrimination in employment; when an employer gives a legitimate reason for an adverse action, the employee must offer evidence that the reason is pretextual.

Robinson v. Austin, III · filed 2024-02-22(a)

Title VII prohibits discrimination on account of race or sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). ... Accordingly, because Robinson has adduced no evidence to create a genuine dispute as to pretext, summary judgment is granted in the Government’s favor on the discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) supports a race discrimination claim at the pleading stage when alleged unequal treatment plausibly links an employee’s termination to race.

Posey v. School District No. 1 in the County of Denver and State of Colorado · filed 2024-02-26(a)(1)

The Court finds that Mr. Posey has plausibly alleged that his termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2 requires a race discrimination claim to allege facts plausibly connecting the employer’s conduct to the employee’s race.

Henderson v. Maryland Transit Administration · filed 2024-03-01

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege the requisite facts to support a claim of disparate treatment discrimination based on race.

A race discrimination claim fails when the employer gives a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination and the employee cannot show that reason was pretextual.

Kirkendall v. Boone County Board of Education · filed 2024-03-06(a)(1)

The Court accordingly concludes that even if Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Defendant has proffered a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not shown pretext. Thus, the Motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s Title VII and KCRA race discrimination claims.

A race discrimination claim fails at summary judgment when the employer gives a legitimate reason for rescinding a promotion and the evidence cannot support a finding that race motivated the decision.

Clawson v. the City of Albany Department of Fire & Emergency · filed 2024-03-11(a)(1)

No reasonable jury could discern from this record, taken as a whole, that the AFD rescinded Clawson’s promotion offer due to his race.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts plausibly connecting an adverse employment action to the employee’s race to state a race discrimination claim.

Marlbrough v. Cornerstone Chemical Company · filed 2024-03-14(a)

Just as Mr. Marlbrough has failed to state a claim for a racially hostile work environment, he has failed to state a claim for race discrimination because the facts he alleged cannot plausibly support a finding that the adverse employment action (here, his termination from employment) was taken because of his race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting an inference that an employee’s termination was based on race.

Snowden v. Oriental Trading Company, Inc. · filed 2024-03-15(a)(1)

Though Plaintiff provides more detail in her Amended Complaint regarding her employment at Oriental Trading and her interactions with Dawn and Marc, the Court finds, after careful review, that the facts alleged fail to give rise to an inference that her termination was based on Plaintiff’s race in violation of Title VII.

A race discrimination claim for failure to promote fails when the employee cannot show that the employer’s qualification-based reason was pretextual or that race motivated the decision.

Wynn v. New Haven Board of Education · filed 2024-03-18(a)(1)

In sum, because no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his race, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Counts One and Three.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) treats race and color as distinct prohibited bases of employment discrimination.

Williams v. Eastern Kentucky University · filed 2024-03-18(a)(1)

Race and color are distinct bases upon which discrimination is prohibited under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting an inference of intentional race discrimination; comparing tenured faculty with the general population alone is insufficient.

BILITY v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH · filed 2024-03-18(a)(1)

The general population of Pittsburgh is not a proper comparison to those persons qualified to be a tenured professor at the University. As such, said statistics are not sufficient to raise an inference of intentional discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim to proceed when allegations of less severe discipline for comparable misconduct plausibly support an inference of discriminatory motive.

Bogle v. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services · filed 2024-03-22(a)(1)

And although Ms. Bogle did not plead all facts necessary to determine whether the comparators are similarly situated in all material respects, the alleged facts plausibly state a claim of discrimination.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) survives dismissal when the employee plausibly alleges an adverse employment action because of race, without pleading every evidentiary element.

Carpenter v. Olin Corporation · filed 2024-03-26(a)(1)

He must simply allege enough facts to allow for a plausible inference that the adverse action could be connected to his protected characteristics and raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Carpenter has done so.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race-based termination; favorable treatment of comparable employees and race-linked comments can support a plausible claim of discriminatory pretext.

Da'vage v. Wcs Construction Company, LLC · filed 2024-03-27(a)(1)

Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer “to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race [or] color.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). ... These comments, coupled with the comparators discussed above, nudge Da’Vage’s pretext allegations just over the line.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework must show that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class was treated more favorably.

Lewis v. Hoovestal Inc. · filed 2024-04-02(a)(1)

Accordingly, Lewis cannot make out a prima facie case of race discrimination under McDonnell Douglas.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits discrimination because of an employee’s race, including discrimination arising from association with people of another race.

Simonsen v. Thurston County School District 87-0013 · filed 2024-04-23(a)

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination against all races, so long as the discrimination is "because of such individual's race." LaRocca v. Precison Motorcars, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 762, 772 (D. Neb. 1999); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). ... The plaintiff has made no allegation of her race or that the school's discriminatory conduct was a result of her race being different than the Native American students she taught and advocated for. See, generally, LaRocca at 773. The plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to state a claim for discrimination based on race under Title VII.

A race discrimination claim must plead facts plausibly connecting an adverse employment action to race.

Thomas v. DeJoy · filed 2024-05-15(a)(1)

The Complaint alleges that “the acts of the Defendant . . . constitute race discrimination” but says nothing more with regard to the alleged adverse employment actions’ connection to Thomas’ race.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires factual allegations supporting a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of discrimination; a conclusory allegation of race-based termination is insufficient.

PEEBLES v. CHAIN IQ AMERICAS, INC. · filed 2024-06-14(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s racial discrimination claim fails to meet this low threshold. Peebles has not articulated a single fact that may raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover proof of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not allow a race discrimination claim to survive summary judgment when the employer gives legitimate reasons for its actions and the employee offers no evidence of pretext.

Dodd v. My Sisters' Place, Inc. · filed 2024-06-17(a)(1)

Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination, defendants have proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the alleged adverse employment actions, and plaintiff points to no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude defendants’ reasons were pretextual. ... Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title VII, Section 1981, and NYSHRL race discrimination claims.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails when the employee identifies no suitable comparator and presents no other evidence that race caused the adverse action.

Winters v. Soo Line Railroad Co. d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railroad · filed 2024-07-02(a)(1)

Winters thus fails to satisfy the elements of a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination complaint to allege facts plausibly connecting an adverse employment action to race; different treatment of a white coworker alone is insufficient.

Brown v. Cook County Auditor's Office · filed 2024-07-16(a)(1)

Without more to suggest that Brown’s treatment was connected to his race, rather than any number of these other alleged or unalleged factors, Brown’s claim fails.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination complaint to allege facts supporting an inference that the employer acted because of the plaintiff’s race or sex.

Murphy v. McDonough · filed 2024-07-18(a)(1)

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on race and sex. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... The district court concluded that Ms. Murphy failed to allege either direct evidence of discrimination or facts suggesting that the defendants took any action against her based on her race or sex. We agree.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in employment, and unequal treatment that plausibly supports an inference of discriminatory constructive discharge can state a claim.

DOUSE v. WALMART · filed 2024-08-09(a)

Moreover, resolving all inferences in Douse’s favor, the Amended Complaint could be read to infer that Walmart’s refusal to allow her to work at the self-checkout line and refusal to remove cash from her register was rooted in discrimination on the basis of age and race. Douse has adequately alleged Title VII and ADEA discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination because of race; alleged mistreatment must be plausibly linked to race to state a claim.

Lee v. McDonough · filed 2024-08-19(a)(1)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “[i]t shall be 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 . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... Although the plaintiff identifies five instances of alleged mistreatment, he fails to connect any of those events to his race. ... Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts that plausibly connect alleged unequal treatment to a protected characteristic; conclusory assertions about race are insufficient.

Williams v. HMSHOST at Washington Dulles International Airport · filed 2024-08-20(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff's allegations that he was treated differently based on his race and that employees identifying with other “races” were not subjected to similar conduct are devoid of sufficient content to bring them above a speculative level.

An employer can be liable for race discrimination even when the supervisor and employee are the same race.

MATHEWS v. WALMART INC · filed 2024-08-22(a)(1)

In other words, just because there may be same-race discrimination, the liability slate isn’t automatically wiped clean under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment classifications based on race; dissatisfaction with a seniority classification does not state a race discrimination claim without facts suggesting racial motivation.

Bazemore v. International Longshoremen's Association, ILA Local 1475 · filed 2024-08-22(a)(1)

The creation of Class HH and the splitting of the HH Class were based on objective factors unrelated to race: hours worked in a given calendar year and presence on the Emergency List.

Section 2000e-2(a) supports a race discrimination claim when the alleged facts plausibly connect an employee’s termination to her race.

Grant v. Henkel Corporation · filed 2024-08-22(a)

Accepting these allegations as true for the purposes of screening, the plaintiff has adequately alleged that the defendant terminated her employment on the basis of her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits firing an employee because of race; at the pleading stage, facts that minimally support an inference that race motivated the firing can sustain a claim.

Murray v. Brag Sales Inc. · filed 2024-08-27(a)(1)

Taking these allegations together, Murray has met his “minimal” burden under Title VII to support an inference that race was a motivating factor in his termination.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

HALL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2024-08-26(a)

To establish a prima facie claim of race discrimination, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he is a member of a protected class, that he suffered an adverse employment action, and that the circumstances of this employment action give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to plead facts plausibly showing that employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment; a bare conclusion is insufficient.

Mitchell v. Ascension Via Christi Hospital St Teresa, Inc. · filed 2024-08-30(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s bare legal conclusion that non-African American employees were treated more favorably is entirely insufficient to satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie case for her Title VII discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination complaint to connect the employer’s challenged conduct to the plaintiff’s race.

HERNANDEZ v. JONES · filed 2024-09-03(a)(1)

Here, although Ms. Hernandez checked the race discrimination box on the form complaint, she does not explain how Defendants' actions were related to her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts plausibly connecting an adverse employment action to race; the differing races of the employee and decision makers alone do not suffice.

Wheeler. v. Giant of Maryland LLC · filed 2024-09-11(a)(1)

However, the mere fact that the apparent decision-makers are white, and Plaintiff is not, does not, by itself, meet the pleading requirements for a claim of unlawful employment discrimination based on race.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts supporting an inference that a protected characteristic motivated an adverse employment action; comparison with employees in the plaintiff’s own racial group does not, by itself, support that inference.

Sung v. DeJoy · filed 2024-09-05(a)

On the contrary, he compares himself explicitly to those within his racial group, alleging that he was treated “different[ly]” and with “discrimination” relative to “other Chinese.” ECF No. 21 at 4. That cannot support any inference of discrimination.

A job applicant alleging race discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must plead facts supporting a plausible inference that race caused the employer’s decision; a conclusory allegation is insufficient.

Webster v. Haaland · filed 2024-09-19(a)(1)

Plaintiff thus alleges insufficient facts in his Complaint to support an inference of discrimination.

Race discrimination claims under § 2000e-2 based on circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Bates v. University Hospitals Health System, Inc. · filed 2024-09-26

Discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence must be analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in compensation; several days of unpaid work can support a discrimination claim at the pleading stage.

Hinkle-Moore v. DeJoy · filed 2024-09-26(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant failed to pay her for several days sufficiently alleges that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Section 2000e-2 covers race discrimination in employment, and a plaintiff states a claim by alleging that an employer took an adverse employment action because of race.

Brooks v. Centerstone · filed 2024-10-04

Under Title VII, those protected characteristics include race and gender, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2, while the ADEA protects against discrimination against those over the age of 40. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). ... Liberally construing the Complaint in her favor, the Court finds that Brooks has sufficiently alleged her claims of retaliation and discrimination based on race, age, and disability against Centerstone.

Denying an employee leave while granting it to less senior employees of another race can plausibly support an inference of race discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

JILES v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION · filed 2024-10-07(a)(1)

His comparator evidence is sufficient to allege facts that plausibly give rise to an inference of discrimination based on race.

A race discrimination claim requires a disadvantageous change to employment terms, conditions, or privileges and evidence that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently.

Worthen v. Chi St Vincent Infirmary · filed 2024-10-08(a)

Worthen’s discrimination and harassment claims fail on their face as she has not shown that she suffered any adverse employment or that similarly situated white case managers were treated differently.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination complaint to allege facts plausibly suggesting discrimination because of race.

ATES v. GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC · filed 2024-10-25(a)(1)

However, even under this rudimentary pleading standard, the Court cannot conclude that the factual allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint plausibly suggest discrimination because of her race.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a race-discrimination claim based on intentional assignments to less desirable working conditions without requiring an intent to cause resulting harm.

Towns v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. · filed 2024-10-28(a)

Thus, contrary to Defendants’ argument, Plaintiffs need only allege that Peoples Gas intended to assign African American employees to less desirable working conditions.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts suggesting that an employer acted because of an employee’s race to plead a race-discrimination claim.

Zimmerman v. Department of Board Education · filed 2024-10-28(a)

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim under Title VII. The Court understands that Plaintiff is alleging that other employees of a different ethnic background mistreated her at work because of her race, but she does not explain what occurred, and the few facts she provides – that she was required to see a “medical examiner” and that someone “impersonated” her in 2021 – do not suggest that her employer discriminated or retaliated against her based on her race.

A Title VII race discrimination complaint must allege facts supporting an inference that the employer acted because of race.

Maina v. National Alloys · filed 2024-11-07(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to support an inference that Defendants discriminated against him based on his race.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must allege facts plausibly suggesting that the employer acted because of race.

Potwin v. Dynasty Building Solutions, LLC · filed 2024-11-25(a)(1)

In the absence of allegations plausibly suggesting discrimination based on race, Counts I, II, and III are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim based on a suspension to proceed when a jury could find that race was part of the employer’s reason for the suspension.

Snowden v. Southerton · filed 2024-11-25(a)(1)

Together with the evidence of other race-based discrimination, a reasonable jury could conclude defendant’s proffered reason for suspending plaintiff was pretextual, and that plaintiff was suspended, at least in part, because of her race.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts supporting an inference of race discrimination; conclusory allegations do not state a claim.

Weathersby v. Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC · filed 2024-11-26(a)

These conclusory allegations do not give rise to an inference of discrimination as required under the third element.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a disparate treatment claim must plausibly connect the challenged action to race.

Rivera v. U.S. Department of Defense · filed 2024-11-26(a)

Rivera’s allegations fail to show any sort of racial discrimination or that the actions that his supervisors took against him occurred because of race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts that plausibly link an adverse employment action to the employee’s race.

DeBiasi v. AARP · filed 2024-12-13(a)(1)

The facts that Mr. DeBiasi pleads regarding AARP’s termination of his employment do not plausibly state a claim that he was terminated because of his race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a plausible inference that an employer took an adverse employment action because of race.

Johnson v. Baltimore City, Maryland: Baltimore Police Department · filed 2025-01-06(a)(1)

As the facts in the Amended Complaint are ultimately inadequate to support a reasonable inference that BPD engaged in unlawful discrimination by taking an adverse employment action against Wanda Johnson based on her race, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim of discrimination under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; when an employer gives legitimate reasons for termination, an employee relying on circumstantial evidence must show those reasons were pretextual.

Kimbro v. Oklahoma House of Representatives · filed 2025-01-16(a)(1)

The House is entitled to summary judgment on Kimbro’s racial discrimination claim under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2 requires a race or color discrimination plaintiff to allege that she was treated differently because of her race or color and was meeting her employer’s legitimate job expectations.

Hill v. MHM Support Services · filed 2025-01-21

But these allegations alone cannot support a claim under Title VII because Plaintiff has not alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race or color, nor has she alleged that she was meeting her employer’s legitimate job expectations.

A race discrimination plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must show, among other things, replacement by someone outside the protected class or different treatment from similarly situated employees outside that class.

Henderson v. Saddle Creek Transportation · filed 2025-01-23(a)(1)

In response to Saddle Creek’s Motion, Mr. Henderson has not shown that he was replaced by a person outside his protected class after he was terminated or that he was treated differently than similarly situated non-protected employees. Thus, Saddle Creek is entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Henderson’s discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts plausibly showing that an employer treated an employee differently because of race; an unsupported comparison does not suffice.

PETERSON v. MOTORCO, LLC · filed 2025-02-05(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has failed to set forth, at this time, facts that plausibly allege racial discrimination, this claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that an employer acted because of race; disputing a reduction-in-force decision without evidence of pretext is insufficient.

Shelia Gray v. Board of Trustees of the Georgia Military College · filed 2025-02-20(a)(1)

Given the record before us, Gray failed to show that the Board fired her because of her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim to proceed when the alleged facts support a plausible inference that termination was connected to race.

Robinson v. State of Illinois, Department of Human Services (DHS) · filed 2025-02-25(a)(1)

Either way, a plausible inference could be drawn that Plaintiff’s termination was connected to her race.

A race discrimination claim must plausibly allege intentional discrimination; the absence of a comparator alone does not require dismissal.

Lowery v. Birmingham Race Course Casino · filed 2025-02-25(a)

And while the simple failure to allege a comparator does not always mandate dismissal, see id., Lowery’s complaint does not include any other factual allegations that would give the court a basis on which to find plausible race discrimination under Title VII.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails when the plaintiff cannot establish disparate treatment through a sufficiently similar comparator.

Manokey v. Reliable Contracting Company, Inc. · filed 2025-02-28(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Manokey and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, RCC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this count because Mr. Manokey has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the disparate treatment element.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees in the terms and conditions of employment because of race.

Ammar v. McDonough · filed 2025-03-04(a)(1)

“Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise 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.”” Muldrow, 601 U.S. at 354 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim to proceed when evidence could support a finding that an employee’s suspension was caused by race.

Green v. Illinois Department of Human Services · filed 2025-03-11(a)(1)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to determine that Plaintiff's suspension pending termination was due to Plaintiff's race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a complaint must allege facts supporting the claimed discrimination.

Sattar v. Hennepin Health Care System · filed 2025-03-11(a)(1)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). Although Sattar checked the box on the complaint form indicating that he was discriminated against based on his race, he includes no facts regarding his race or any racial discrimination that he allegedly suffered.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that race caused an adverse employment action; speculation about racial bias cannot sustain a discrimination claim.

Brown v. City of Evanston, Illinois · filed 2025-03-12(a)(1)

Because the record does not reflect evidence of illegal bias underlying the termination decision, Plaintiff’s discrimination claims also fail under Ortiz.

Section 2000e-2 permits a race discrimination claim to proceed when the evidence could allow a factfinder to infer discrimination and find the employer’s stated reason pretextual.

Robinson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General · filed 2025-03-13

In short, viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find the record shows sufficient evidence for a factfinder to find pretext for the defendant’s adverse actions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employers from discriminating in the terms or conditions of employment because of an individual's race.

Scott v. Brandon Company of Tennessee, LLC · filed 2025-03-18(a)(1)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the individual's race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; when an employer gives a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, the employee must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Jones v. Blanton · filed 2025-03-19(a)(1)

Instead, the summary judgment analysis turns on whether Jones’s evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the AOC’s stated reason for ending his employment was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a race discrimination claim to proceed when allegations that employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment support an inference of discrimination.

Lawrence v. Wormuth · filed 2025-03-24(a)

Because Plaintiff alleges employees outside of her protected class were treated more favorably and alleges the only other African American employee received discriminatory treatment, Plaintiff sufficiently establishes the fourth element. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the race discrimination claim is DENIED.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim to proceed when alleged differences in treatment plausibly support an inference of discrimination.

Broil v. Kansas Bureau of Investigation · filed 2025-03-26(a)(1)

Taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, those allegations support a plausible inference that defendant treated plaintiff differently than her colleagues because of her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee claiming race or sex discrimination to show that the employer took an adverse action because of that protected characteristic.

Sowell v. State of Illinois Department of Human Services · filed 2025-03-26(a)(1)

As was also discussed above, there is no evidence that IDHS’s reliance on the OEIG was dishonest or for discriminatory reasons. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate as to Plaintiff's discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination claim to plausibly connect an adverse employment action to race; disparaging comments, exclusion from meetings, and write-ups without tangible job consequences do not suffice.

Galbreath v. Help at Home, LLC · filed 2025-03-26(a)(1)

Even so, the allegations do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. ... But the complaint does not allege that the company fired her based on her race.

Under the race discrimination framework, a single day of misconduct can establish that an employee failed to meet the employer’s legitimate expectations.

Myles v. Cook County · filed 2025-03-27(a)(1)

For the purposes of the legitimate-expectations inquiry, one day’s worth of misconduct may suffice to conclude that the employee “failed to meet [an employer’s] legitimate expectations as established by its Code of Conduct and Workplace Violence policy.” See Anders, 463 F.3d at 676.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting an inference that an employer’s decision to fire an employee was because of race.

Bell v. MedLine · filed 2025-03-27(a)(1)

Bell offers no allegations for the Court to infer that there was any connection between his termination and his race or disability. Bell fails to allege facts to support an inference that Medline treated him differently than those without a qualifying disability or non-Black individuals in terminating his employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that race played a role in an employee’s termination.

Esaw v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

Accordingly, after considering the totality of the evidence, the Court finds under Ortiz that no reasonable jury could have found that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on her race or age.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer that the employer took the challenged actions because of race.

Hill v. Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC · filed 2025-03-31(a)

But standing on its own, this evidence is not strong enough to shoulder the burden of sufficient evidence through which a reasonable juror could find that Georgia-Pacific refused to get Mr. Hill an ambulance, required a drug test, or terminated Mr. Hill because he is black.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a reasonable inference that an employer took adverse action because of an employee’s race; a conclusory allegation is insufficient.

Rushing v. Wood Health Company, LLC · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

I conclude Wood Health is entitled to the dismissal of Rushing’s Title VII discrimination claim because his complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to support the necessary inference that Wood Health took any adverse employment actions against Rushing because of his race.

A race discrimination claim fails when the evidence does not show that race played a role in the employer’s decision.

Powell v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago · filed 2025-04-11(a)(1)

The record does not reflect that Plaintiffs race played any role in Defendant’s decisionmaking. Whether analyzed under McDonnell Douglas or Ortiz, that means Plaintiff cannot establish pretext. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of Defendant is appropriate.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race or color discrimination claim to plausibly allege that the employer took an adverse employment action because of race or color.

Coleman v. IEH Autoparts LLC · filed 2025-04-14(a)(1)

The allegations in the amended complaint do not suggest that Plaintiff’s employer took an adverse employment action against her because of her race or color.

A plaintiff relying on indirect evidence of race discrimination must show that the employer’s stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination.

Baker v. Lowes Foods, LLC · filed 2025-04-24(a)(1)

But, even if she could make out a prima facie case of discrimination, she has failed to show the employer’s explanation for terminating her, the September 17, 2023, incident, was instead a pretext for discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence supporting an inference of intentional discrimination; an unsupported claim that another employee received more pay does not suffice.

Bennett v. SEPTA · filed 2025-04-30(a)(1)

Bennett’s claim regarding the 2021 reduction of her salary increase fails at the prima facie stage. She provides no evidence of racial discrimination, stating only that she heard that Medernach received greater compensation for similar work.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employers from discriminating in employment because of race or sex.

Handy v. WS Barricade Corporation · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

In short, Title VII prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to plead facts supporting a plausible inference that race caused an adverse employment action.

McMillian v. The City of Aberdeen · filed 2025-05-12(a)(1)

In the end, the Plaintiff is required to plead factual allegations that will support a conclusion that racial discrimination led to the subject adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination complaint to plead facts plausibly suggesting an adverse employment action caused by intentional racial discrimination.

Kennedy v. Secretary, Department of Defense · filed 2025-05-14(a)(1)

Kennedy’s third amended complaint failed to plead facts plausibly suggesting she suffered adverse employment action due to intentional race-based discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on whether an employee conforms to stereotypes associated with a protected class.

Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. · filed 2025-05-15(a)(1)

Title VII prohibits discrimination against a member of a protected class for conforming to, or failing to conform to, stereotypes of a protected class member.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination claim to connect the adverse employment action to the employee’s race.

Parker v. Brine's Refrigeration · filed 2025-05-21(a)(1)

Nor does the Complaint explain that Parker’s termination was taken “because of” his race. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Without any relevant allegations, the claim necessarily fails.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination complaint to allege facts plausibly connecting the employer’s treatment to the employee’s race; failure to identify a proper comparator alone does not require dismissal.

Lowery v. Birmingham Race Course Casino · filed 2025-05-22(a)

While the failure to allege a proper comparator does not, on its own, mandate dismissal, Jaffe, 2021 WL 4220356, at *3, Lowery’s amended complaint does not provide any facts connecting her treatment to her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework must identify a similarly situated employee who received more favorable treatment.

McCray v. Florida Gypsum, LLC · filed 2025-05-23(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has failed to proffer a comparator with whom he was similarly situated in all material respects, he has failed to make out his prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits firing an employee because of race, and a complaint states a plausible claim when its allegations support an inference of race discrimination.

Wraggs v. Lozier Corporation · filed 2025-05-27

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 addresses discrimination and provides an employer cannot “discharge any individual . . . because of . . . race . . ..” ... And Wraggs’s allegations—that a manager called him a racial slur at work and Lozier fired him rather than investigating the manager—give rise to an inference of discrimination. So, the Court concludes he pled a plausible race discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires facts supporting an inference that an adverse employment action was based on a protected class; stating the employee’s race alone does not suffice.

BETHEA-SPEAS v. URBAN AFFAIRS COALITION (UAC) · filed 2025-05-30(a)

To state an employment discrimination claim, a plaintiff must “put forth allegations that raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element,” i.e., discrimination based on a protected class. ... None of these allegations raise any inference of racial discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a plausible inference that an employer’s adverse action was motivated by race.

Harris v. Hargo LLC · filed 2025-06-06(a)(1)

Without facts from which the court could infer that Plaintiff’s race was a factor in the ultimate decision to fire him—or that white employees were permitted to smoke marijuana on the job while he was terminated for suspicion of the same—Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible claim of race discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race or color discrimination claim against an employer to proceed when the complaint plausibly alleges discriminatory treatment.

Babb v. Christian Heights Nursing Home and Rehabilitation · filed 2025-06-10(a)(1)

Liberally construing the factual allegations set forth above and taking them as true, as required, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated plausible Title VII discrimination claims against Christian Heights sufficient to survive initial review.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a race discrimination claim over denied acting pay to survive summary judgment when the evidence supports a prima facie case and could allow a jury to find the employer’s explanation pretextual.

Blagmon v. Hanover County · filed 2025-06-13(a)

For the reasons articulated below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to make a Prima Facie case of race discrimination under Title VII and for a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s stated reasons for the apparent disparity are pretextual.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a race-discrimination claim fails when the employer gives a legitimate reason for its action and the employee does not show that reason was a pretext for discrimination.

BANKS v. ALAMANCE-BURLINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2025-07-08(a)(1)

Plaintiff does not show that Defendant’s articulated reason was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits associational race discrimination claims without requiring a close relationship, but the employee must plausibly link the association to the adverse action.

FRONTANEZ v. STV GROUP,INCORPORATED · filed 2025-07-15(a)(1)

The degree of association seems more appropriate for consideration under the causation element. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Reed has failed to state a plausible claim for associational race discrimination.

Evidence that an employer’s stated reasons for termination may be pretextual can allow a Title VII race discrimination claim to proceed to trial.

Johnson v. Rockland County BOCES · filed 2025-07-21(a)(1)

The Court disagrees, because a reasonable jury could find defendants’ articulated reasons for terminating plaintiff were pretextual. ... Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title VII, Section 1981, and NYSHRL race discrimination claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a race discrimination complaint must allege facts supporting satisfactory job performance and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees of another race.

Davis v. Walsh · filed 2025-07-24(a)(1)

Plaintiff fails to detail any disparate treatment that establishes the fourth pleading requirement of a Title VII claim. ... As such, the facts alleged do not establish that Plaintiff was meeting her employer’s legitimate job expectations. ... Because Plaintiff fails to assert facts establishing all four pleading requirements for a Title VII discrimination claim, this claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim even when the decision-maker and employee share the same race.

Hampton v. Tempe, City of · filed 2025-07-30(a)(1)

In fact, Title VII does not foreclose racial discrimination claims based on same-race discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to show that the circumstances of an adverse employment action support an inference of racial discrimination.

Johnson v. Johnson County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners · filed 2025-07-31(a)

Therefore, because Plaintiff did not explain why the alleged adverse employment actions were discriminatory on the basis of race, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s discrimination claim is granted.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory motive for a race-discrimination claim.

Nicklin v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2025-08-06(a)(1)

Here, Nicklin has failed to produce any evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive for his termination.

Section 2000e-2 permits a race discrimination claim to proceed when an employee alleges satisfactory performance, an adverse employment action, and worse treatment than a similarly situated employee of another race.

Watkins v. Collins · filed 2025-08-08(a)(1)

The Court finds Watkins has adequately alleged a discrimination claim based on race and the SVA will be required to answer this claim. However, the Court finds Watkins has failed to adequately allege sex discrimination and age discrimination and will dismiss these claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts that plausibly show race-based disparate treatment; conclusory comparisons with employees outside the protected group are insufficient.

Butler v. ACH Child and Family Services · filed 2025-08-22(a)(1)

But she alleges no facts that enable the court to draw the reasonable inference that others similarly situated outside her protected group were treated more favorably.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination complaint to plausibly allege less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected group.

Kirk v. Our Community Our Children · filed 2025-08-22(a)(1)

Kirk has not alleged sufficient factual content that, taken as true, would enable the court to draw the reasonable inference that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated individuals outside her protected group. Accordingly, the court dismisses Kirk’s Title VII and § 1981 race discrimination claims.

A race discrimination claim under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) needs factual allegations supporting an adverse employment action and a connection to race; conclusory assertions are insufficient.

Chism v. Advanced Technology Services, Inc. · filed 2025-09-02(a)(1)

Chism’s simple assertions that his former employer discriminated against him—without more—are conclusory allegations not entitled to the presumption of truth.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must support a reasonable inference of intentional discrimination.

Jones v. City of Birmingham · filed 2025-09-10(a)

This evidence is insufficient to create a reasonable inference that the City intentionally discriminated against Ms. Jones on the basis of race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim to proceed when a Black employee plausibly alleges she was assigned less advantageous duties that white employees were not required to perform.

IN RE: NIA STALLWORTH · filed 2025-09-12(a)(1)

Most relevant here, discovery could reasonably show that being required to clean bathrooms constitutes an adverse employment action because, drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, it amounts to a less advantageous task that white employees were not required to take on.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim to proceed when the complaint plausibly alleges that the employer terminated the employee because of race.

Branch v. Brickyard Healthcare · filed 2025-09-16(a)(1)

Branch’s termination is an obvious adverse employment action, and her complaint plausibly alleges Brickyard terminated her because of her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a claim must allege facts supporting an inference of race-based differential treatment.

Rashad v. Westmore Carries · filed 2025-09-29(a)(1)

Rashad has pled enough for the first three elements, but he alleges no facts that if proven would show differential treatment on the basis of his race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge because of race; an employer is entitled to summary judgment when the employee cannot show that its stated reasons for discharge were pretextual.

Sanders v. Aerotek Inc · filed 2025-09-30(a)(1)

In summary, there is no evidence that race played a determinative role in Sanders’ termination. Thus, Aerotek is entitled to summary judgment on Sanders’ Title VII race discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) covers termination because of an interracial association regardless of how close the association is.

Fennel v. Elmore County Board of Education · filed 2025-10-06(a)

When an employee complains that she was terminated because of her interracial association, it necessarily falls within the statutory language that she was terminated “because of” race—the degree of association is immaterial.

A Title VII race-discrimination claim based on circumstantial evidence fails when the employee cannot show that the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing him were pretextual.

Broadnax v. Rhombus Energy Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-10-15(a)(1)

That’s because we agree with the district court’s alternative holding that Broadnax failed to demonstrate that Rhombus’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing him were pretextual. And that analysis suffices to reject Broadnax’s discrimination claims.

A race discrimination complaint under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must allege facts showing replacement by someone outside the plaintiff’s protected class or different treatment from similarly situated people outside that class.

Jones · filed 2025-10-15(a)(1)

Turning to the fourth element, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead that he was replaced by or treated differently than similarly situated individuals outside his protected class.