Second Circuit reinstates NYC educator’s racial-harassment suit over anti-bias trainings
Court finds evidence the DOE condoned harassment of white staff during implicit-bias trainings under the de Blasio era, allowing the case to proceed toward trial or settlement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday reinstated Leslie Chislett’s 2019 lawsuit against New York City, ruling that the case can proceed against the Department of Education. The three-judge panel overturned a district court’s dismissal and signaled that a jury could find the city’s public-schools agency allowed racial harassment of white staff during anti-bias trainings and in the workplace under the de Blasio administration.
The court said Chislett presented evidence that would allow a reasonable juror to find that the DOE consistently ignored racial harassment of Caucasian employees during implicit-bias trainings and workplace interactions. The decision notes that a senior executive in the DOE’s Office of Equity and Access was quoted at a diversity training session as saying, “There is white toxicity in the air, and we all breathe it in.” The panel’s ruling frames the case as one where negative generalizations and stereotypes about white people were directed at Chislett during the 2018 trainings, while supervisors and staffers allegedly accused her of exhibiting traits associated with white supremacy.
Chislett, a veteran administrator who led the Department of Education’s Advanced Placement for All initiative, says she faced a pattern of hostility after she disciplined or managed subordinates. The suit contends that colleagues called her racist and labeled her “white and fragile,” and one staffer snapped, “How dare you approach me out of your white privilege!” Chislett alleges that higher-ups — including then-Deputy Chancellor LaShawn Robinson, who is Black — ignored her repeated complaints of hostility, eventually forcing her to take medical leave and resign.
The decision expressly notes that a rational jury could find the administration condoned the racial harassment. It comes against the backdrop of broader accusations regarding the de Blasio administration and Carranza, the DOE chancellor from 2018 to 2021, that white administrators were demoted in favor of staff of color. In an associated development, the city settled in April 2024 with three other white former DOE administrators in a related suit for a total of about $2.1 million, an outcome that Perry described as separate from the Chislett case but indicative of the ongoing tension surrounding the policy.
Perry, who represents Chislett and the other plaintiffs, said the appellate ruling sends a message that discrimination based on race will not be tolerated in any form. “With this decision, the court has made it clear that discrimination based on race will not be accepted in any form,” Perry said. The defendants did not offer substantive comment; the Department of Education referred questions to the city Law Department, which declined to comment.
The court’s ruling does not determine remedies or damages, but it clears the path for the case to proceed toward discovery and, potentially, a trial. Chislett told The Post that while the ruling provides long-awaited vindication, it does not restore the decades-long career she loved and contributed to in the city’s public schools. “I knew at the time that what the DOE and its complicit leaders were doing was horribly divisive and unlawful,” she said.
The decision underscores ongoing questions about internal policy and culture in New York City’s public schools during the late 2010s and early 2020s, particularly around how anti-bias training and related workplace dynamics were managed. As the case moves closer to trial, both sides will face scrutiny over the extent to which DOE leadership either condoned or failed to address harassment aimed at employees based on race.
The litigation illustrates a broader legal question: can a public agency be found liable for harassment by its employees if it creates or tolerates an environment in which harassment based on race is normalized or overlooked? The Second Circuit’s opinion suggests the answer could be yes, at least in the context of anti-bias training and workplace interactions within a large school system. As the case unfolds, observers will watch for how the DOE characterizes its training programs and whether any systemic changes follow from the appellate ruling. The city’s Law Department has not yet indicated a plan for further court action in response to the ruling, and a lower-court schedule will likely determine the next milestones in the proceedings.