Employee claims U.S. would be better off with fewer nonwhites

The scenario: A woman’s coworkers began to complain to their supervisors that the female crew member was making racially offensive comments.

For instance, the woman claimed that the U.S. would be better off with more white people and fewer nonwhite individuals. She also said that Black folks have different IQs than people of other races, and that advertisements portraying interracial couples are deceptive “because they don’t show Blacks as they really are: a bunch of single moms with a bunch of guys who float in and out; kids by different men.”

In addition, the white woman told a Black colleague that it was rational to be afraid of Black men while riding in elevators.

Following an investigation, the woman was suspended for one year at half pay.

Legal challenge: The worker sued for race discrimination, saying she was really suspended because she’s a white, Jewish woman.

The ruling: The employer won. The court said the staffer failed to prove she was suspended because of her race. The judge pointed out that she suffered the adverse employment action because of the things she said, not because of her protected characteristics.

Discrimination laws apply to individuals based on their inherent characteristics, not because of the content of their speech, said the court.

The skinny: If you’re thinking about disciplining a member of your crew because of potentially offensive comments made by the person, make sure the adverse employment action can be directly linked to the content of what the person said rather than protected characteristics such as race, religion, or national origin.

Cite: Wax v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, No. 2:25-cv-00269, 8/28/25.

(From the September 19, 2025, issue of HR Manager’s Legal Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here.)