Laundromat Attendant’s Retaliatory Termination Claims Survive

Takeaway: Operations with multiple small outlets and dispersed management may be particularly prone to being sued for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A laundromat worker’s claims of discriminatory and retaliatory termination, a hostile work environment, refusal to accommodate her disability, and unpaid wages produced sufficient evidence to be heard by a jury, according to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court sent the claims back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The claims stated that from December 2018 until her termination in April 2019, a Black woman of Jamaican descent worked as a customer service attendant for a laundromat chain. The attendant worked primarily at one location but occasionally picked up shifts at two other locations.  

Toolkit: Termination of Employment

An alleged cycle of abuse involving layers of management began in February 2019. The attendant’s supervisor began to make derogatory comments to her daily, telling her that she was “too ‘hood’ and ‘ghetto’ to work” for the employer.

The attendant reported this to the district lead, who took no action. A new district lead also began routinely making derogatory comments, telling her she “looked like Aunt Jemima” and describing her as “talking Jamaican.”

Upon her doctor’s instructions following a broken thumb, the attendant asked that she not be required to lift more than 25 pounds. The supervisor said she “shouldn’t have this job” if she needed an accommodation and still required her to lift more than 25 pounds.  

Related Article: Puzzled by How to Handle an Accommodation Request?

The attendant then told the regional leader about the supervisor’s derogatory comments and refusal to accommodate her injury. The regional leader said, “[W]e might need to have a conversation if you can’t do your job.” The attendant then met with the district lead to discuss the supervisor’s derogatory comments.

The attendant also filed a formal complaint with the district lead stating that she had not been paid for shifts worked at two other locations. The district lead never responded.

On April 14, 2019, the attendant took a taxi to work. As instructed, she reimbursed herself by taking $15 from the cash register and replacing it with her taxi receipt. The next day, the attendant’s new supervisor asked her to return the money. The attendant declined, based on her understanding of company policy. The supervisor informed the district lead, who fired the attendant three days later for removing cash from the register and refusing to return it.

The attendant sued the employer, alleging discriminatory and retaliatory termination, a hostile work environment, and refusal to accommodate a disability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as an unpaid wage claim. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer.

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the attendant’s claims, the 2nd Circuit held. These allegations included:

• Discriminatory termination. With the attendant having alleged a threshold case of discriminatory firing, the burden shifted to the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action. The attendant then had to show that the employer’s justification was pretextual or that her firing was motivated, at least in part, by her membership in a protected class. The 2nd Circuit held a jury could reasonably infer that the attendant’s race or national origin played at least some part in her firing. The supposed legitimate reason for the firing did not hold up against the attendant’s sworn testimony that employees were permitted to reimburse themselves for taxi fare as long as they left a receipt.
• Retaliatory termination. The attendant complained to her managers about racial harassment and the refusal to accommodate her injury. The temporal proximity between the attendant’s complaints and her firing, combined with the pretextual nature of the stated reason for termination, would allow a rational jury to conclude that the employer would not have fired her but for her protected activity.
• Hostile work environment. Racially offensive comments by a co-worker can create a hostile work environment, as can offensive comments based on a person’s ancestry or national origin. To withstand summary judgment, a plaintiff must demonstrate either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were sufficiently continuous and concerted to have altered the conditions of her working environment. Drawing all reasonable inferences in the attendant’s favor, a rational jury could conclude that the attendant’s evidence met that standard.
• Failure to accommodate. The record reflected a genuine factual dispute as to each element of the attendant’s claim.
• Unpaid wages. The attendant offered sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on her wage claims.

Knox v. CRC Management Co., 2nd Circuit, No. 23-121 (April 9, 2025).

Margaret M. Clark, J.D., SHRM-SCP, is a freelance writer in Arlington, Va.