In September 2025, federal courts issued a series of rulings narrowing the scope of workplace discrimination and retaliation claims. From vaccine refusals to one-off slurs to a professor’s racial remarks, judges emphasized that not every workplace dispute rises to the level of a federal case. Get the details in our latest update.
Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Vaccine-Based Religious Bias Suit Against Philadelphia Schools
The Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a former Philadelphia school district employee who refused the COVID-19 vaccine. In Gregory Bingham Jr. v. Philadelphia School District (No. 24-2998), the appellate panel upheld summary judgment for the district, concluding that Bingham’s resignation was voluntary and not the result of religious discrimination.
Bingham alleged that he was terminated because his Christian beliefs prevented him from receiving the vaccine. However, the court noted that he later admitted to interviewing for and accepting a new job at a nearby charter school before resigning from his district position. The panel emphasized that “a voluntary resignation is not a disciplinary action taken by the employer.”
Under Title VII, plaintiffs must establish that a religious belief conflicted with a job requirement, that the employer was informed of the conflict, and that disciplinary action followed. The panel found Bingham’s claim failed at the threshold, as he was not disciplined.
The court also rejected Bingham’s arguments regarding remote work, noting he never formally requested such an accommodation. Instead, the district provided reasonable alternatives, exempting him from vaccination but requiring quarantine when exposed to COVID-19.
The case underscores that voluntary resignation and failure to follow established accommodation procedures can defeat discrimination claims at the outset.
Michigan Judge Reaffirms Dismissal of Retaliation Suit Over Single Use of Racial Slur
A Michigan federal judge has reaffirmed her decision to dismiss a retaliation lawsuit brought by a former employee of LaFontaine Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, finding that a single instance of racist language did not establish a valid Title VII or state-law retaliation claim.
In Hackney v. LaFontaine Automotive Group LLC (No. 2:22-cv-12612), U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker denied Samuel Hackney’s motion for reconsideration of her September 2024 ruling granting summary judgment to the dealership. Hackney, who is Arab American, alleged that he was fired for protesting a supervisor’s racial slur.
The court, however, found that Hackney’s opposition to one remark did not amount to “protected activity” under Title VII or Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Judge Parker stated that complaining about a single racist remark is not enough to establish a retaliation claim under Supreme Court precedent: “[n]otwithstanding the utter disrespect that this dehumanizing language conveys, case law precedent holds that it is not ‘conduct made unlawful’ under Title VII or ELCRA”.
The dealership maintained that Hackney was terminated for repeated performance and attendance issues during his short tenure. Judge Parker further noted that the decision to fire Hackney was made by the general manager, not the supervisor who used the slur, undercutting any theory of retaliatory animus.
The ruling highlights the high bar retaliation plaintiffs face, and that opposition to isolated workplace remarks may fail to constitute “protected activity” triggering anti-retaliation protections.
Judge Dismisses Law Professor’s Federal Discrimination Suit Against University of Pennsylvania
University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax has lost her federal discrimination claims against the school, with a federal judge ruling that she was disciplined for her repeated racist remarks, not because of her race.
In Wax v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (No. 2:25-cv-00269), U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage dismissed Wax’s claims with prejudice, finding that her suspension and loss of privileges stemmed from offensive comments targeting racial minorities and same-sex relationships. The court emphasized that antidiscrimination laws protect individuals from being targeted based on protected characteristics, but “do not create a cause of action based on the content of speech.”
Wax, a tenured professor since 2001, argued she was treated more harshly than other faculty members who allegedly made antisemitic remarks about Israel and Palestine. Judge Savage rejected this comparator argument, ruling that those statements were political in nature, while Wax’s were explicitly directed at minority groups within the university community.
The opinion further noted that Wax failed to allege facts showing she was disciplined because she was white or Jewish. “She did not support any protected class,” Judge Savage wrote. “To characterize her comments as supportive of those she criticized and denigrated is not plausible.”
The case serves as a reminder that federal anti-discrimination laws are not likely to serve a shield for offensive speech, even when the speaker claims unequal treatment.
Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.
