Management Update

Volume 15, Issue 11

November 2026

Title VII Limits Tested in Workplace Dispute Over “Karen” Remark

By Scott D. Wilson

A White former high school psychologist failed to prove a coworker’s comment calling her a “Karen” qualified as race-based discrimination, a federal judge ruled.

Elizabeth D’Aiello, who worked at Freeport High School in New York, didn’t experience “severe or pervasive” enough treatment for a reasonable jury to conclude she experienced a hostile work environment, Judge Joan M. Azrack wrote Tuesday for the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The judge granted the school, Freeport School District, and individual defendants summary judgment on all the suit’s federal claims. She remanded D’Aiello’s claims under New York law back to state court.

The suit is part of a growing tide of workplace discrimination cases brought by White employees in recent years, bolstered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s renewed focus on discrimination against majority groups.

D’Aiello worked at the high school from 2004 until her resignation in 2024, according to the opinion. Her allegations center on a 2021 incident when a secretary said to her and another White woman, “Here comes Karen 1 and Karen 2.”

D’Aiello complained about the statement, leading school administrators to convene a meeting where the secretary apologized. Still, the meeting “began to devolve” and an assistant principal said, “This is not fairyland, Ms. D’Aiello, this is Freeport,” the opinion said.

In subsequent incidents, D’Aiello said the same assistant principal told her to lock her door during a school drill and told her she had “walked in the wrong door” when she was looking for a principal’s office, which she took as “verbally aggressive,” the opinion said.

Azrack found none of these incidents constitute a hostile work environment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as her complaint stated.

“Although the remarks may have been ‘unpleasant’ to her, that alone does not constitute a materially disadvantageous change in employment sufficient to qualify as an adverse action,” the judge added.

D’Aiello’s discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act also fail because she didn’t cite any adverse actions related to her hearing impairment beyond a single comment, Azrack wrote. Her retaliation claims fail because she didn’t show the school took any negative actions against her related to her complaints.

The judge remanded her remaining discrimination and retaliation claims under New York law back to state court.

The case is D’Aiello v. Freemont High Sch., E.D.N.Y., No. 2:23-cv-00577, 10/20/26.

Don’t Skip the Dialogue: Why the ADA’s Interactive Process Is a Legal and Strategic Must

By Philip Giorlando

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) bars employers from treating qualified people with disabilities unfairly, and most businesses understand that much. What gets less attention is a related obligation that generates a great deal of litigation: when an employee or job applicant may need an adjustment in order to do the work, the employer must sit down with that person and figure out what could help. This back-and-forth is known as the interactive process.

Treat this step as mandatory. Mishandling it can create legal exposure for an employer even if the requested adjustment ends up being turned down.

The Concept in Brief

At its core, this is a cooperative exchange between the employer and the worker or applicant, aimed at deciding whether some reasonable adjustment would let the person carry out the job’s essential duties. The exchange should be adaptable and tailored to the individual rather than a rigid checklist or a standard form.

Employers should remember that the point isn’t simply staying compliant but landing on workable answers. Handled well, the exchange helps keep good employees and lifts morale, and it lowers the risk of legal trouble.

Knowing When Your Obligation Kicks In

In general, your duty begins once an employee lets you know that a medical condition is creating a need for help at work. A few points deserve emphasis:

Specific phrasing is unnecessary. Employees needn’t say “reasonable accommodation” or cite the ADA. Telling a supervisor, “My medical treatments are making it hard for me to arrive on time,” is sufficient to put your obligations into play.

Someone else may speak up. A relative, physician, or even a colleague can raise the request for the employee.

Visible limitations can’t be ignored. Where a disability is readily apparent, such as a physical or cognitive condition, and the employer knows the employee is having difficulty, the obligation to start talking may exist even without any request from the employee.

How to Handle It Well

After the conversation starts, employers should move swiftly and with sincerity. Specifically:

Reply without delay. Long stretches of inaction, particularly silence lasting weeks or months, may be viewed as proof that the employer did not comply.

Pin down what the job really requires. Separate core duties from peripheral ones. Core duties generally need not be eliminated, though peripheral tasks may have to be shifted to someone else.

Prepare managers in advance. Line supervisors are frequently the first people to hear that an employee needs an adjustment, and their reaction can determine whether the matter is handled properly or turns into a disability claim. Employers should provide training for all supervisors at least once a year so they learn to spot such requests.

Ask for medical paperwork only when warranted. When the condition or the need for an adjustment isn’t evident, requesting medical documentation is fine, but only to the extent necessary to confirm the condition and understand its limitations. Employers should take care not to seek medical details that serve no purpose.

Keep several options on the table. Consider the employee’s ideas along with the business’s operational realities. Employee preferences count, yet the employer may pick any solution that works and doesn’t create an undue hardship, even if it differs from what the employee asked for.

Write everything down. Preserve thorough records of the exchange, including communications, evaluations, and the rationale for each decision, since these will be vital if a decision is ever challenged.

Why It Pays Off

Taking part in this exchange properly not only cuts the risk of discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims; it may also protect an employer against compensatory and punitive damages should a dispute arise. Courts have determined that employers who genuinely try to find a solution, even when they don’t succeed, can sidestep the stiffer consequences tied to apparent indifference or bad faith.

The Bottom Line

This is not a one-off form or an administrative hurdle. It sits at the center of the law’s requirement to provide reasonable accommodations. Employers that train their HR personnel and front-line managers on the subject will be in a stronger position to answer accommodation requests in a way that is both lawful and humane.

Listening and working together is not only what the law demands; it is also the way to build a workplace that is more welcoming and better able to withstand setbacks.

Wage Rate Increase for Certain Federal Contractors: What Employers Need to Know

By Rachael Jeanfreau and Kenneth J. Nilsson

On October 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a notice announcing an upcoming wage rate increase for certain federal contractor employees. Effective January 6, 2027, the minimum wage for covered workers performing work on certain federal contracts will rise from $13.65 to $14.05 per hour, while the required minimum cash wage for tipped employees will increase from $9.55 to $9.85 per hour.

This rate adjustment applies exclusively to legacy federal contracts established under Executive Order 13658, namely, (1) procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act; (2) service contracts covered by the Service Contract Act; (3) certain concessions contracts; and (4) certain contracts in connection with federal property or lands, which were entered into between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, and have not subsequently been renewed or extended. Because many Federal construction and service contractors are already bound by higher prevailing wage determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act or Service Contract Act, this new rate mainly affects concessions contracts not covered by the Service Contract Act and certain contracts in connection with federal property or lands

To ensure full compliance before the new year, Federal contractors should review active Federal contracts awarded between 2015 and 2022 to confirm whether the new minimum wage rates under Executive Order 13658 apply to them, increase employee pay if needed to comply with the Order by January 6, 2027, and after it is released by the Federal government, post the updated Federal contractor labor law notice.

Because government contracting compliance involves highly fact-specific determinations, employers with questions regarding contract coverage or pay practices should consult with their labor and employment counsel.