Fired Over $15. Or Was It the HR Complaints?

Fired Over $15. Or Was It the HR Complaints?

A laundromat worker reimbursed herself $15 from the register for a taxi fare—something she claimed was standard practice with a receipt. Three days later, she was fired. But because she had just complained about racial harassment, disability discrimination, and unpaid wages, the timing raised red flags.

The Second Circuit said a jury should decide whether she was fired for taking the $15—or for speaking up.

TL;DR: The Second Circuit just revived a fired laundromat worker’s claims of race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate under the ADA, and unpaid wages under the FLSA. The case is a warning to employers: inconsistent enforcement, ignored complaints, and even small-dollar disputes can lead to costly litigation.

📄 Read the full Second Circuit opinion here (PDF)

🚩 The Facts: $15, daily slurs, and a doctor’s note

A Black woman of Jamaican descent worked for a laundromat chain at several Bronx locations. According to her sworn statements:

• Her supervisor regularly called her “too hood” and “ghetto,” and said, “the Yankee in [you] makes you timid.”
• A district manager added remarks like “You look like Aunt Jemima” and chastised her for “talking Jamaican.”
• After a car accident, her doctor restricted her to lifting no more than 25 pounds. Her accommodation requests were allegedly ignored.
• She filed internal complaints and an EEOC charge alleging discrimination and unpaid wages.
• Shortly after, she reimbursed herself $15 for a taxi fare—something she said was allowed and routine, provided there was a receipt.
• Three days later, she was terminated.

⚖️ The Legal Breakdown: Why summary judgment didn’t stick

The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, finding that key facts were in dispute and should be resolved by a jury. Here’s how the court applied the law:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin. The court found that frequent, race-based slurs from supervisors created a plausible inference of discriminatory motive behind the termination.
• Retaliation under Title VII and New York law protects employees who oppose unlawful practices. The court noted the suspicious timing—termination just days after multiple complaints—and found that the employer’s justification (the $15 reimbursement) could be seen as pretextual.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to accommodate qualified employees with disabilities. The court ruled that the employee’s testimony—about her medical restriction and her employer’s failure to modify her duties—was enough to let a jury decide whether the ADA was violated.
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay for all hours worked, including overtime. The employee alleged she worked uncompensated shifts across multiple locations. The court said her sworn testimony, taken as true at the summary judgment stage, was sufficient to allow her wage claim to proceed to trial.
• Hostile Work Environment: Even though the harassment lasted only two months, the court emphasized the frequency and source of the comments—supervisors using racially offensive language—which could be enough to create a hostile work environment.
• Aiding and Abetting: The court reinstated claims against two supervisors who didn’t appear. Because the underlying claims survived, the court held that the aiding and abetting claims should proceed too.

💡 Three Employer Takeaways

1. Don’t underestimate the value of documentation.
   A $15 incident may seem trivial—but in the absence of clear rules and consistent enforcement, it can become a liability. Document expectations, responses to complaints, and accommodation efforts.
2. Short-term misconduct still counts.
   A two-month barrage of racial slurs by supervisors was enough to send the case to trial. Duration isn’t always the deciding factor—intensity and source matter too.
3. Policy enforcement must be consistent.
   If some employees are reimbursing themselves with no consequence, punishing one for doing so—especially after they report discrimination—can look retaliatory.

✅ The Employer Handbook Bottom Line

This wasn’t about $15. It was about ignored complaints, inconsistent practices, and a failure to accommodate. The court made clear that those issues—not the dollar amount—are what raised legal risk.

Handle complaints promptly. Apply policies evenly. And remember: what feels minor may be major in the eyes of a jury.