In 2017, Leslie Chislett, a white woman, was appointed to serve as the Executive Director for the “AP for All” program, an initiative within the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to increase participation in Advancement Placement courses by students in underserved communities. The program was housed in the DOE’s Office of Equity & Access (OEA), and Chislett supervised a team of approximately 15 employees. Though she initially achieved measurable success, she quickly encountered interpersonal and racial tensions. A subordinate accused her of microaggressions toward people of color, and other colleagues described her as “white and fragile” and accused her of holding back employees of color.
In 2018, then-mayor, Bill de Blasio, appointed Richard Carranza to serve as Chancellor of the DOE. Chislett claimed that Carranza intensified the DOE’s equity agenda, which included widespread implementation of implicit bias trainings. These trainings included material that Chislett and others perceived as hostile toward white employees. Slides and facilitators allegedly described white cultural values as “supremacist,” listed traits like perfectionism, objectivity, and individualism as features of white supremacy culture, and physically arranged employees to illustrate privilege based on whiteness. Chislett reported being told that her interest in excellence was an example of white supremacy, and that her discomfort demonstrated “white fragility.”
The racial dynamics spilled into workplace interactions. Subordinates accused Chislett of “coming from a position of white privilege,” called her racist, and rebuked her for questioning performance. In 2019, the DOE stripped her of supervisory responsibilities following negative feedback, though her title and pay remained the same. Nonetheless, soon thereafter Chislett resigned, citing emotional distress and an inability to return.
Chislett brought a § 1983 claim asserting racial discrimination and municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), which provides that a municipality may be held liable if it is the municipality’s custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation. She alleged three distinct theories: (1) disparate treatment in the form of demotion, (2) a racially hostile work environment, and (3) constructive discharge.
To evaluate Chislett’s claim that she was demoted because of her race, the Court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Under this test, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. If that is done, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the reason was pretextual and that race was the “but-for” cause of the decision.
Here, the DOE offered evidence that Chislett was stripped of her supervisory responsibilities in response to persistent staff complaints about her leadership style and communication. In turn, Chislett pointed to racialized workplace dynamics and implicit bias training materials she found hostile to white employees. The Court held that while the broader environment may have been challenging, she had not produced evidence connecting her demotion to racial animus by the decision-makers, nor had she shown that similarly situated employees of other races were treated differently. Accordingly, the Court affirmed summary judgment on the demotion claim.
That said, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of Chislett’s hostile work environment claim. For a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, and that this environment was the result of intentional discrimination on the basis of race.
The Court concluded that Chislett presented enough evidence to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on both prongs. It pointed to the content and frequency of the DOE’s implicit bias trainings, which included generalizations about “white supremacy culture” and negative stereotypes about white individuals, as well as specific allegations that Chislett was personally targeted, ostracized by subordinates, and denied support from leadership.
The Court also found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the alleged conduct reflected a municipal policy or custom, satisfying requirements under Monell. DOE leadership had not only received multiple complaints about the trainings and workplace culture but also appeared to endorse or participate in the messaging, thus supporting the inference of an institutionalized practice.
Finally, the Court rejected Chislett’s constructive discharge claim, emphasizing that the legal standard for such a claim is significantly higher than for a hostile work environment. To prevail, a plaintiff must show that their employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. The Court acknowledged that Chislett experienced a difficult and racially charged work environment, but held that the record lacked evidence showing that DOE leadership deliberately sought to force her out or that the workplace conditions were objectively unbearable.
The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Chislett’s demotion and constructive discharge claims but vacated and remanded her hostile work environment claim for trial. The Court emphasized that although implicit bias trainings are not inherently discriminatory, they may support a hostile work environment claim when conducted in a way that stereotypes and stigmatizes employees based on race.
Chislett v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. (2d Cir. 2025) 2025 LX 432111.
Note: This case underscores how race discrimination claims may arise from the implementation of DEI or implicit bias training programs, particularly where the content singles out employees based on racial identity.