In Poteat v. CP Development et al, No. 24-3290, 2026 WL 93129 (3d Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a lower court’s granting of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of race discrimination and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
The court summarized the facts, and explained its ruling, as follows:
Poteat claims that, shortly after she was hired, co-worker Barbara Jacobs made the “following racially charged and discriminatory comments” on several different occasions in Poteat’s presence: 1) “that Hispanics [are] rude”; 2) “that African Americans, in her opinion, were more likely to fraudulently fill out apartment application documents”; 3) regarding immigration, “I don’t know where they’re coming from, but they’re all coming over. You know, those Indians or Arabs, whatever they are”; 4) that Mexican women are “fiery” and that “Mexicans are taking over our jobs”; 5) about an African-American coworker, “look at Denzel, isn’t he one of those beautiful black men?”; and 6) “on one occasion where the employees were watching a true crime documentary about missing people of color, possible murder victims[:]‘that would never happen in my neighborhood’.”
Poteat claims that she complained to Polinsky about Jacobs’ comments multiple times, and that he promised to “handle the situation.” App. 52. But on September 28, 2023, Poteat’s difficulties with Jacobs escalated when, during a morning meeting at which Polinsky was also present, Jacobs yelled at Poteat to “just do what they tell you. If they are telling you to do something, it is for a reason.” Poteat alleges that Polinsky failed to intervene until she “began to speak up for herself,” telling her and Jacobs “that they were both in the wrong.” Even though Poteat asked Polinsky to connect her with Human Resources after the incident, he failed to do so.
The day after this altercation, Poteat received a final notice for poor performance, although she alleged it was her first notice. Soon after, she was terminated, days before she would have received a $1,000 signing bonus. Poteat claims that this reason was pretextual and that Polinsky terminated her in retaliation for reporting “racial discrimination and a racially hostile work environment.”
…
We will affirm the District Court in full. The District Court properly dismissed Poteat’s hostile work environment claim. Our decisions allow a plaintiff to bring a Section 1981 claim if she suffered a “hostile work environment on the basis of race,” reasoning that such an environment can “amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment.” But to make out that claim, a plaintiff must show: 1) “intentional discrimination because of [the plaintiff’s] race” that 2) was “severe or pervasive” and that both 3) “detrimentally affected the plaintiff” and 4) “would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances,” as well as 5) “the existence of respondeat superior liability.”
(Cleaned up.)
The court concluded that plaintiff’s allegations “fail to clear this high bar” and observed that “Jacobs’ tone-deaf comments are not by themselves severe or pervasive enough to create a racially-prejudiced hostile work environment for Poteat” and that “offhanded comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious), especially when not directed at a particular plaintiff, should not be considered severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment.” (Cleaned up.)