January 3, 2026 • 33 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
What happens when a workplace equity agenda clashes with the rights of an employee? Join Mark Carey in this gripping episode of Employee Survival Guide® as they dissect the landmark case of Leslie Chislett vs. the New York City Department of Education (DOE), a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle against racially hostile work environment discrimination in the workplace. This episode dives deep into the intricate legal landscape of workplace equity policies, focusing on the complexities of proving systemic discrimination under federal civil rights law, specifically Section 1983 and what is a racially hostile work environment.
Chislett's claims of disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge raise critical questions about the balance between equity initiatives and employee rights. Our hosts analyze the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' split decision that allowed Chislett's hostile work environment claim to proceed while dismissing her other claims, shedding light on the demanding legal standards of causation and the concept of municipal liability.
As we navigate through the challenges Chislett faced in her pursuit of justice, we uncover the harsh realities of proving that her demotion and resignation were directly tied to race discrimination. This episode is not just about one individual's struggle; it’s a wake-up call for public sector organizations to actively monitor workplace equity training and prevent hostile environments that can lead to severe employee distress and legal disputes.
Listeners will gain valuable insights into the implications of this case for all employees, especially those navigating employment law issues such as retaliation, discrimination, and workplace harassment. We discuss essential employee survival tips, including how to negotiate severance packages, understand employment contracts, and advocate for your rights in the face of workplace challenges.
If you’re an employee seeking to empower yourself in the face of discrimination, or if you’re simply interested in the evolving landscape of workplace rights, this episode of Employee Survival Guide® is a must-listen. Tune in to learn from the experts, understand your rights, and equip yourself with the knowledge to thrive in an increasingly complex work environment. Don't miss this chance to transform your understanding of workplace equity and employee rights and take charge of your career development!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:18):
Welcome back to the Deep Dive, the show where we
take your complex stack ofsources, the articles, the
research, the legal filings, anddistill the most crucial nuggets
of knowledge and insight youneed to be truly well informed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:29):
That's right.
SPEAKER_01 (00:30):
Our mission today is highly specific, highly
technical, and frankly, it'sjust fascinating.
We're looking at the legalboundaries of workplace equity
policies.
Right.
How high is that legal bar forproving systemic discrimination
against a municipality?
And what specific, you know,nuanced set of facts allows one
claim to survive that high barwhen two others, based on the
(00:52):
exact same events, failcompletely?
SPEAKER_00 (00:54):
Aaron Powell It's a huge question.
We are deep in the weeds offederal civil rights law today,
specifically 42 USC section1983, and the concept of
municipal liability.
This whole deep dive reallycenters on this extremely thorny
intersection of mandatorydiversity and equity policies
and the subsequent workplacehostility they allegedly
fostered.
(01:15):
And this is not just a New Yorkstory.
Right.
The outcome here has massiveimplications for every public
sector employer, really anylarge organization running
mandatory, institution-wide biastraining nationwide.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (01:29):
Okay, so let's unpack this and get right into
the central case.
The focus of our entire analysisis the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals decision from September2025 in Chislet v.
New York City Department ofEducation, which we'll just call
the DOE from here on out.
Yep.
So this case involves LeslieChislett, a Caucasian former
executive employee who sued theDOE and its former Chancellor,
(01:50):
Richard Carranza, alleging racediscrimination.
SPEAKER_00 (01:53):
And her claim laid out this um comprehensive
narrative of racialdiscrimination that she says
resulted from the DOE's newequity agenda.
She filed three distinct claimsunder Section 1983.
SPEAKER_01 (02:04):
And what were they?
SPEAKER_00 (02:04):
First, she claimed disparate treatment,
specifically what amounted to ademotion.
Second, she claimed a hostilework environment.
And third, she claimedconstructive discharge,
basically arguing the conditionsforced her to quit.
SPEAKER_01 (02:15):
Right.
And the outcome, which is themain reason this case is in our
stack, is what requires suchdeep scrutiny.
The district court, the firstcourt, originally ruled in favor
of the DOE on all three counts.
It granted summary judgment.
But upon appeal, the SecondCircuit Court of Appeals
delivered this stunningly splitdecision.
SPEAKER_00 (02:34):
Aaron Ross Powell A really surprising one.
They affirmed the dismissal ofthe demotion and the
constructive discharge claims.
So those discrete adverseemployment actions.
Gone.
But critically, they vacated thesummary judgment and remanded
the hostile work environmentclaim back to the lower court
for trial.
SPEAKER_01 (02:52):
Aaron Powell So what does that mean in plain English?
SPEAKER_00 (02:54):
It means a rational jury could potentially find in
her favor on the hostilityclaim, but not the others.
SPEAKER_01 (03:00):
That split decision means there is a subtle but
absolutely crucial legaldistinction there.
And understanding the why ofthat success and failure, that's
the core of our listeners'mission today.
SPEAKER_00 (03:11):
And to understand any civil rights claim against a
government entity, we have tostart with the legal
cornerstone, Monell.
Absolutely.
The Monell requirement, it stemsfrom a Supreme Court case,
Monell v.
Department of Social Services.
It's the central legalconstraint here.
It's designed to shieldmunicipalities from lawsuits
based on the doctrine ofrespondent superior.
SPEAKER_01 (03:32):
Okay, so before we get to what we can use, explain
the doctrine we can't use.
What's Respondent Superior?
SPEAKER_00 (03:38):
That doctrine essentially means let the master
answer.
In typical private sectoremployment law, if a supervisor
discriminates, the company isoften automatically on the hook
because the supervisor wasacting within the scope of their
employment.
Monell explicitly says you can'tdo that with municipalities.
You can't just sue the city ofNew York because one bad
(03:58):
supervisor or one racistemployee acted improperly.
SPEAKER_01 (04:02):
That sounds like an impossible standard to meet.
I mean, how can a plaintiffpossibly prove discriminatory
intent runs through the entireDNA of a huge organization like
the DOE, especially without, youknow, a written rule that says
discriminate.
SPEAKER_00 (04:16):
And that's the challenge.
That's the whole ballgame.
To sue the DOE, the plaintiffhas to prove that the
constitutional violation, inthis case, racial discrimination
under the Equal ProtectionClause was caused by an official
municipal policy or custom.
SPEAKER_01 (04:30):
A policy or custom.
SPEAKER_00 (04:31):
Right.
And this policy or custom hasthree forms a written rule, a
decision made by a finalpolicymaker, or, and this is the
most relevant one here, apervasive and persistent pattern
of behavior that policymakerstolerated or ignored.
SPEAKER_01 (04:46):
So they sort of gave it the force of law by looking
the other way.
SPEAKER_00 (04:50):
Exactly.
This concept of tolerance orconstructive acquiescence, that
is the critical path Chisletttook to keep her one claim
alive.
SPEAKER_01 (04:59):
So the distinction is between just random bad
behavior and systemicinstitutionalized behavior.
We need to see how she built hercase to prove that the pervasive
hostility was, in fact, aninstitutional custom that the
DOE itself authorized.
SPEAKER_00 (05:12):
That's it.
SPEAKER_01 (05:13):
Let's jump into section one and establish the
environment within the NYC DOEthat serves as the backdrop to
this whole conflict.
Who was Leslie Chislet and, youknow, how does she fit into the
DOE before this new agenda wasrolled out?
SPEAKER_00 (05:24):
Well, Chislet was a highly qualified, long-tenured
professional.
She had a master's degree, hadbeen with the DOE for over 14
years, and had a successfulhistory, specifically turning
around challenged schools.
SPEAKER_01 (05:37):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (05:38):
In 2017, she was serving as the executive
director of the AP for allprogram, which operated within
the Office of Equity and Access,or OEA.
SPEAKER_01 (05:47):
And the irony here is that the AP for all program
was itself dedicated to equityoutcomes, right?
It was targeting underservedstudents.
SPEAKER_00 (05:54):
Aaron Powell Exactly.
She was instrumental inachieving a huge victory for
equity, a 92% increase inadvanced placement course
participation across schools,which significantly improved
access for students of color whohad historically been
underrepresented in thoseclasses.
SPEAKER_01 (06:10):
So her commitment to and her success in achieving
these equitable outcomes isstrongly established in the
record.
SPEAKER_00 (06:16):
It is.
She's a committed professionalachieving the organization's
equity goals.
Yet even before the newchancellor arrived, there were
signs of, you know, internalracial friction.
It suggests a pre-existingclimate.
That's an important point.
In one early instance, hersubordinate, Akua Atafope, who
Chislet had criticized forperformance issues, reported
Chislet for allegedmicroaggressions.
SPEAKER_01 (06:39):
And what were those?
SPEAKER_00 (06:40):
Things like ignoring, dismissing, or
interrupting people of color.
So the DOE's own Office of EqualOpportunity investigated this
complaint.
And crucially, while they foundsome of her comments
inappropriate, they explicitlydetermined that they did not
rise to the level ofdiscrimination.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (06:56):
Okay.
So the foundation ofinterpersonal conflict was
already there, and it was oftenbeing framed in these racial
terms.
SPEAKER_00 (07:01):
It was.
Then in 2018, Chancellor RichardCarranza arrived and he ushered
in this massiveinstitutional-wide push for
racial equity that forms theessential policy backdrop of the
lawsuit.
Trevor Burrus, Right.
Carranza came with a clear anduh uncompromising mandate to
tackle racial and economicdisparities across the massive
DOE system.
The sources really capture theurgency of this.
(07:24):
He reportedly told staff thatanyone who drew a paycheck from
the DOE would either get onboard with my equity platform or
leave.
Wow.
That, quote, sets a tone thatis, you know, less about
discussion and more aboutmandatory compliance.
SPEAKER_01 (07:37):
Aaron Ross Powell That phrase suggests the policy
shift was treated as a kind ofinstitutional loyalty test.
And this wasn't just talk.
It was backed by significantfinancial investment.
SPEAKER_00 (07:47):
Aaron Powell Indeed.
The OEA, Chislit's owndepartment, became the central
engine for this platform.
It received a staggering$23million to develop and scale
mandatory implicit biastrainings for staff throughout
the city's massive schoolsystem.
And these trainings wereexplicitly described as the part
(08:08):
and parcel and the cornerstoneof Carranza's entire equity
agenda.
This confirms that the trainingsthemselves were an official
high-level municipal policydecision.
SPEAKER_01 (08:18):
And we also have evidence that this focus
translated directly intohigh-level staffing decisions,
showing that the organizationalpriority was really fixed on
racial outcomes.
SPEAKER_00 (08:26):
We do.
Sources note that Mayor deBlasio and Chancellor Carranza
were fixated on racial diversityin the leadership ranks.
We have this telling examplefrom executive superintendent
Maisha Ross Porter, who laterbecame Chancellor herself, and
she stated (08:39):
when I am selecting principals, teachers, or
leaders, after we make the list,we look at it and we count.
How many women, how many peopleof color, and why.
I look at the makeup and Iliterally count, and it's okay
for us to do that.
SPEAKER_01 (08:54):
That testimony is crucial.
I mean, it shows a policymakeracknowledging that demographic
outcomes are a deliberate,measured factor in official
selection processes.
That feeds directly intoChislet's argument that race was
not a neutral factor within theDOE culture.
SPEAKER_00 (09:08):
It connects the highest levels of the
administration directly to theidea that race was an overriding
factor in employment decisionsand organizational focus.
And this leads us directly tothe trainings themselves, which
Chislet claimed were noteducational but actively
exacerbated the already raciallycharged workplace.
SPEAKER_01 (09:25):
Okay, let's really dedicate some time to the
content of these implicit biastrainees, because the language
cited in the court records isthe very evidence that creates
this legally hostileenvironment.
SPEAKER_00 (09:34):
And the language cited is, well, it's shocking in
its specificity and its level ofessentialism.
SPEAKER_01 (09:40):
What do you mean by essentialism?
SPEAKER_00 (09:42):
It means treating race as a defining, unchangeable
essence of a person's behavior.
So in a mandatory training inMay 2018, instructors told
participants that whitecolleagues must take a step back
and yield to colleagues ofcolor, and most powerfully, to
recognize that values of whiteculture are supremacist.
SPEAKER_01 (10:09):
That's an incredible statement coming from an
official city training program.
This isn't theoretical.
This is prescriptive behaviorbased on race.
SPEAKER_00 (10:16):
And it was codified in the training materials.
PowerPoint slides explicitlylisted traits associated with
internalized white superiority,including concepts that are
often, you know, lauded in aprofessional context.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (10:26):
Like what?
SPEAKER_00 (10:27):
Things like individualism, denial,
dominating space, andintellectualization.
SPEAKER_01 (10:32):
Aaron Powell So traits commonly associated with
Western professional norms, likepursuing independent thought or
relying on objective data werebeing redefined within this
official DOE context as symptomsof internal racial toxicity.
SPEAKER_00 (10:46):
That's precisely the reframing that creates the
alleged hostility.
The May 2018 retreat featured aneven more explicit white
supremacy culture list.
It asserted that the Protestantwork ethic and devotion to the
written word were examples ofwhite supremacy.
SPEAKER_01 (11:02):
We'd have to stop you there.
Devotion to the written word inan educational institution.
SPEAKER_00 (11:07):
That's what the record shows.
The list also includedperfectionism, sense of urgency,
and objectivity.
SPEAKER_01 (11:13):
Objectivity.
This is a crucial hinge pointfor the lawsuit.
When you name things likeperfectionism or objectivity as
inherent parts of whitesupremacy culture, you are
essentially telling whiteemployees that their efforts to
adhere to high standards or toseek factual neutrality are
rooted in a harmfuldiscriminatory ideology.
SPEAKER_00 (11:31):
It fundamentally redefines workplace critique and
expectation.
SPEAKER_01 (11:34):
Yes, turns professional standards into
grounds for ideological shaming.
SPEAKER_00 (11:37):
And that's what happened to Chislet personally.
During a QA, instructors toldher directly that her interest
in excellence was perfectionismand consistent with white
supremacy.
Wow.
Furthermore, the seniorexecutive director of the OEA,
Dr.
Ruby Ababio Fernandez, who wasone of Chislet's future
supervisors, set thedepartmental tone by declaring:
(11:58):
there is white toxicity in theair and we all breathe it in.
SPEAKER_01 (12:02):
And when a senior leader uses such blunt language
in a professional setting, itgrants tacit permission for
subordinates to use that samelanguage, or worse, in their
daily interactions.
SPEAKER_00 (12:11):
Exactly.
And the hostility escalated fromrhetorical to physical singling
out.
At a mandatory June 2018training, participants were
instructed to answer questionsabout their white privilege, and
then they were physically linedup to reveal the dividing color
line of privileges that favoredwhites.
SPEAKER_01 (12:28):
So it's a public physical division and shaming
mechanism based solely on race.
SPEAKER_00 (12:33):
Yes.
And when Chislet, feeling deeplyuncomfortable, tried to opt out
of an exercise, she declined tolist white values.
She faced immediate andaggressive peer retaliation that
was actively condoned by thefacilitators.
What happened?
The shaming was immediate andpublic.
A participant publicly calledher a horrible person who did
(12:54):
not deserve to be working withchildren in New York City.
And the crucial piece, thefacilitator backed up the
accuser.
SPEAKER_01 (13:01):
They didn't step in.
SPEAKER_00 (13:01):
Quite the opposite.
The facilitator stated thatfailure to stand up to people
like Chislett who disagree withthese views, children's lives
would be at stake.
SPEAKER_01 (13:10):
So the message was clear.
Objecting to the trainingmethodology was the same as
sabotaging the educationalwelfare of children.
And in the court's view, thislack of supervisory defense
validated the hostility.
SPEAKER_00 (13:21):
It did.
SPEAKER_01 (13:22):
This first section establishes that the DOE
created, mandated, andfinancially backed a training
environment that encouraged theessentialist racial stereotyping
of white employees.
And when Chislet objected, shewas publicly labeled as a
dangerous obstacle, and theleadership just stood by.
SPEAKER_00 (13:38):
That is the foundation of the successful
hostile work environment claim.
It demonstrates that the sourceof the hostility was not random,
but tied directly to theinstitution's official mandatory
programming.
SPEAKER_01 (13:49):
Okay, now we move to section two.
How this highly chargedinstitutional environment bled
into Chislett's dailyoperations, crippling her
ability to manage and ultimatelyculminating in these adverse
employment actions.
Right.
How frequently was thisracialized discourse enforced
outside of those formal, youknow, mandatory training
(14:09):
sessions?
SPEAKER_00 (14:10):
The mandate was pervasive.
OEA employees were expected tohave racial conversations in
group settings approximatelyonce a month.
This was a sustaineddepartmental expectation that
kept the focus squarely onracial identity and the charged
language from the trainings.
SPEAKER_01 (14:25):
And this is where Chislet's ability to perform her
job essentially evaporated.
She couldn't perform basicsupervisory functions without
being racially targeted.
SPEAKER_00 (14:32):
The record is very clear on this.
When she attempted simpleperformance management like
asking her subordinate, BiancaRenee, why she was late, Renee
immediately accused Chislet ofmaking a race-based judgment
fueled by her white privilege.
SPEAKER_01 (14:47):
So she couldn't even ask why someone was late.
SPEAKER_00 (14:49):
Renee added that Chislet could not be trusted.
And this was a consistentpattern.
When Chislet disciplined ormanaged subordinates, she was
routinely labeled white andfragile.
SPEAKER_01 (15:00):
So any attempt by the white supervisor to enforce
standards or accountability wasinstantly reframed by the
subordinate as an act of racialaggression.
That sounds like the definitionof an unbearable managerial
environment.
SPEAKER_00 (15:12):
It creates an unworkable system where
performance management isimpossible without risking a
career-ending accusation.
The hostility became so acutethat Chislet finally complained
to her team that the environmentwas becoming almost unbearable.
SPEAKER_01 (15:25):
And the response to that specific choice of words is
telling.
SPEAKER_00 (15:28):
It is.
It weaponizes the concept ofsuffering itself.
Renee responded with, How dareyou use the word unbearable?
There is black people dying inthe street.
You don't have the right to usethat term.
You're coming from the positionof white privilege and white
supremacy.
SPEAKER_01 (15:43):
So it suggests Chislet's own experience of pain
was racially illegitimate.
SPEAKER_00 (15:48):
It did.
And again, Chislet complained toher supervisors who offered no
relief or intervention.
SPEAKER_01 (15:53):
And we also have evidence that this rhetoric
extended beyond just Chislet,right?
It shows a general atmosphere ofthis kind of sentiment, which
strengthens the objective testfor a hostile work environment.
SPEAKER_00 (16:05):
Yes, the case cites an incident involving a white
adjacent colleague.
This was someone of mixed-raceparentage who had married a
white man and adopted blackdaughters.
After this colleague monitoredRenee's productivity, Chislet
overheard Renee call her a slavemaster, and another employee
labeled her a white dominantleader.
SPEAKER_01 (16:24):
And that incident is crucial because it shows the
hostility was pervasive andorganizational, not just some
personal feud between Chisletand Renee.
These facts, the institutionaltraining, the targeted personal
critique, the refusal ofmanagement to intervene, they
all build the case for severeand pervasive hostility.
Let's move to the demotion,which is the discrete action
(16:47):
that forms claim one.
SPEAKER_00 (16:48):
The demotion occurred on March 20th, 2019.
Her supervisors, Dr.
Ababa Fernandez and CourtneyWingfield, removed all of
Chislett's supervisoryresponsibility.
All of them.
All of them.
Her pay and title remain thesame, but she was stripped of
her core function, going fromsupervising 15 people to
supervising no one.
And the legal standard confirmsthat this is a significant
(17:10):
diminution of duties andtherefore qualifies as an
adverse employment action.
SPEAKER_01 (17:14):
Right.
The DOE, of course, needed tooffer a legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason forthis action to defend itself.
What was their rationale?
SPEAKER_00 (17:21):
Aaron Powell Their stated reason was entirely on
its face neutral.
The supervisors claimed the teamneeded time to heal, and that
the decision was based onfeedback from nearly every
member of the team, that Chisletwas an ineffective leader who
created chaos and a negativework environment.
SPEAKER_01 (17:37):
And critically, what was the nature of that feedback?
SPEAKER_00 (17:40):
Well, Wingfield testified that the majority of
this negative feedback cited wasnot racial in nature.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (17:45):
Okay.
And the optics of the subsequentpersonnel shuffle also provided
the appearance of a non-racialmanagerial reorganization.
SPEAKER_00 (17:53):
Aaron Powell It did.
Within two days of Chislet beingneutralized, many of her duties
were immediately transferred toAkua Adiphope.
SPEAKER_01 (18:00):
The same subordinate who had initiated the first
microaggression complaintagainst her.
SPEAKER_00 (18:04):
The very same.
So this move suggests anofficial endorsement of
Adiphope's side of the conflict,regardless of the official
non-racial justification forChislet's demotion.
SPEAKER_01 (18:14):
Then the final dramatic chapter was the staff
retreat in May 2019, whichfollowed media attention.
SPEAKER_00 (18:22):
Yes.
Chislet, having retained legalcounsel, had spoken anonymously
to the New York Post about thehostile environment and the
white supremacy culturetraining.
Articles were published just afew days before the retreat.
SPEAKER_01 (18:33):
So the DOE knew one of their employees had spoken to
the press.
SPEAKER_00 (18:36):
They were well aware.
And this retreat, it became apublic witch hunt.
SPEAKER_01 (18:40):
How so?
SPEAKER_00 (18:41):
At the May 23rd retreat, OEA executive director
Paul Forbes, instead ofdefending the organization
against press leaks, he spoke ofindividuals sitting amongst us,
alongside of whiteness, who wereopposing the equity work.
SPEAKER_01 (18:54):
So he is targeting the leaker.
SPEAKER_00 (18:55):
Then Dionka Renee addressed Chislet by name,
stating Chislet was prohibitingthis work from happening.
Adafolk and others stood up andtold Chislet she was not willing
to do the equity work and thatshe should just go.
SPEAKER_01 (19:08):
For how long did this go on?
SPEAKER_00 (19:10):
About 15 minutes.
A direct, public, sustainedattack on her character and
professional loyalty.
SPEAKER_01 (19:16):
And the result.
SPEAKER_00 (19:16):
She left humiliated, frightened, and in tears.
She required short-termdisability leave and felt
compelled by the environment toresign in September 2019.
And that act of resignation thatforms the basis of claim three
constructive discharge.
SPEAKER_01 (19:31):
The facts certainly paint a picture of an
intolerable environment, butlegally, that environment wasn't
enough to sustain the demotionclaim or the constructive
discharge claim.
Let's pivot to section three anddissect the court's rigorous
analysis of why those two claimsfailed.
This is essential tounderstanding the law's high
burden.
It is.
Okay.
Claim one was the discriminatorydemotion.
(19:54):
The crucial legal standard underSection 1983 for discrete
adverse actions is but forcausation.
Chislitt had to prove that racewas the determinative reason,
not just one of several reasons,for her demotion.
SPEAKER_00 (20:07):
And this is where we really need to unpack the
McDonnell Douglas burdenshifting framework.
It's a three stage test used toevaluate claims of
discrimination based on indirectevidence.
SPEAKER_01 (20:18):
Walk us through the three stages in the context of
Chislet.
SPEAKER_00 (20:21):
Stage one.
The plaintiff must establish aprima facie case of
discrimination.
This is relatively easy.
Chislet, as a Caucasian person,is a member of a protected class
when alleging reversediscrimination.
She was qualified for her job,she suffered an adverse
employment action, and thecircumstances suggest
discriminatory motive.
SPEAKER_01 (20:39):
She checked all those boxes.
SPEAKER_00 (20:40):
She satisfied stage one.
So stage two, the burden shiftsto the employer, the DOE, to
articulate a legitimate,non-discriminatory reason for
the action.
SPEAKER_01 (20:50):
And what did they say?
SPEAKER_00 (20:51):
The DOE satisfied this by presenting Wingfield's
testimony.
They cited the pattern ofnegative feedback from the team
about Chislet's effectiveness,inconsistency, and creating a
negative work environment.
On paper, that's a legitimatereason.
SPEAKER_01 (21:05):
Which brings us to stage three.
SPEAKER_00 (21:06):
Right.
The burden shifts back toChislet to prove that the DOE
stated reason ineffectiveleadership was merely a pretext
for actual racialdiscrimination.
And this is the stage where thedemotion claim failed.
Why?
Precisely.
The court acknowledged theevidence of racial hostility,
but Chislet failed to meet thehigh burden of proving that
(21:26):
Winkfield and Ababa Fernandez,the supervisors responsible for
the demotion, were motivated byrace when they made that
decision.
SPEAKER_01 (21:34):
So it wasn't enough that the environment was
hostile.
She had to prove the decisionmakers themselves acted on that
hostility.
SPEAKER_00 (21:40):
Yes, or that the nonracial reasons they cited
were either entirely false orjust insufficient to justify the
action.
SPEAKER_01 (21:46):
So even if the DOE had a broad discriminatory
culture, she couldn't prove thatthose specific managers acted
based on that culture ratherthan the documented PEM feedback
about her leadership style.
The court isn't assessing if theemployer was fair, only if the
stated reason was the truereason.
SPEAKER_00 (22:04):
Correct.
The court found Chislet failedto produce evidence that the
persons responsible for thedecision were motivated by
racial discrimination.
Winkfield, who is alsoCaucasian, testified the
feedback was primarilynon-racial.
Chislet didn't effectivelyrefute that.
Thus, the court couldn'tconclude that race was the butt
for cause of the demotionitself.
SPEAKER_01 (22:25):
So summary judgment was affirmed for claim one.
SPEAKER_00 (22:27):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (22:28):
Now claim three, the constructive discharge, also
failed, despite the workplaceatmosphere being demonstrably
toxic.
Why did the court say theconditions, as bad as they were,
weren't legally intolerableenough to compel resignation?
SPEAKER_00 (22:40):
The standard for constructive discharge is
incredibly demanding.
It is just about the highest barin employment law.
The plaintiff has to show theemployer intentionally created a
work atmosphere so intolerablethat a reasonable person would
have felt compelled to resign.
SPEAKER_01 (22:55):
Intentionally created.
So the employer must have setout to force the employee's
hand.
SPEAKER_00 (22:59):
Aaron Powell Yes.
The conditions have to be worsethan just difficult or
unpleasant.
We're talking about actionstypically reserved for active
campaigns to force someone out.
A massive, immediate pay cut, asudden relocation to an
unworkable office, explicitphysical threats.
SPEAKER_01 (23:16):
Trevor Burrus And what Chislet faced didn't rise
to that level.
SPEAKER_00 (23:18):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, while her work environment
was certainly found to beabusive and unpleasant, the
court determined that thehostility, though severe and
pervasive, was cumulative.
SPEAKER_01 (23:27):
And the cumulative nature prevented the court from
finding the requiredintentionality to compel her
resignation.
SPEAKER_00 (23:33):
Exactly.
She did not provide evidencethat the DOE had specifically
and with intent made herconditions intolerable to force
her resignation.
The hostile environment wasdeemed an unfortunate sustained
consequence of the institutionalpolicies, but not an intentional
tool of separation.
SPEAKER_01 (23:51):
So that claim also failed.
SPEAKER_00 (23:53):
Summary judgment affirmed for claim three.
SPEAKER_01 (23:55):
This highlights the paradox.
The facts were severe enough tocause her to quit, and severe
enough to qualify as a hostileenvironment, yet not severe or
intentional enough to meet thathighest legal standard for
constructive discharge.
SPEAKER_00 (24:08):
The difference is that narrow, and that's why
legal nuance matters.
Which brings us to claim two,the hostile work environment
claim, the one that survived andwas sent back for trial.
SPEAKER_01 (24:19):
Right.
And this success hinged entirelyon meeting the objective
hostility standard andsuccessfully tying that
hostility to the municipalityunder Monell.
SPEAKER_00 (24:27):
That's it.
SPEAKER_01 (24:28):
Let's focus on the objective standard first.
The court found that a rationaljuror could find the workplace
objectively hostile based on thetotality of the circumstances.
What specific elements ofChislett's mosaic of evidence
were most effective here?
SPEAKER_00 (24:41):
The court emphasized the sheer volume and
institutional backing of theabuse.
The mosaic included, first, theconstant drumbeat of negative
generalizations about whitepeople delivered during
mandatory DOE-sanctionedtrainings.
SPEAKER_01 (24:55):
So this wasn't isolated, it was the curriculum.
SPEAKER_00 (24:57):
It was the curriculum.
Second, the highly targetedabuse, like telling her that her
interest in excellence wasperfectionism and consistent
with white supremacy.
Third, the fact that ordinarysupervisory duties, like
questioning lateness, resultedin constant concentrated
comments labeling her white andfragile or racist.
Yeah.
And fourth, the supervisorynon-intervention.
(25:19):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (25:19):
And that non-intervention is critical
because it leads us directly tothe Monell policy hurdle, which
the first court thought she hadfailed to clear.
The district court essentiallysaid the hostility was
departmental, not official DOEpolicy.
SPEAKER_00 (25:33):
And the appellate court fundamentally disagreed.
The question became how did shesuccessfully connect the
pervasive harassment perpetratedby coworkers and training
facilitators, who are not finalpolicymakers, to the
municipality itself, therebysatisfying Manel.
SPEAKER_01 (25:48):
How did she do it?
SPEAKER_00 (25:49):
She did it through the concept of constructive
acquiescence in action.
SPEAKER_01 (25:52):
Okay, so let's establish the prerequisite, the
imputation requirement.
She had to show the DOE wasaware of the problem.
SPEAKER_00 (26:00):
And she had overwhelming evidence.
She complained repeatedly tomultiple supervisors: Robinson,
Ababio Fernandez, Winkfield,Kazi, starting in spring 2018,
sometimes in writing, thehostility was not a secret.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (26:14):
She even escalated it beyond her direct
supervisors.
SPEAKER_00 (26:16):
Aaron Ross Powell She did.
She had legal counsel contactthe DOE in April 2019 about the
hostile environment, and theDOE's own internal investigation
found her claims of a raciallycharged environment plausible.
Yet they did not take any stepsto address the complaints.
SPEAKER_01 (26:32):
And the response from her supervisors wasn't just
passive neglect, it was oftenacted dismissal or even
scolding.
SPEAKER_00 (26:37):
The response demonstrated a deliberate
indifference.
Supervisors either scolded her,tolerated the racist behavior,
or explicitly put the onus ofstopping the harassment on
Chislet herself.
Her leadership coach, Winkfield,even told her the trainings were
not going to change.
SPEAKER_01 (26:52):
That, quote, the trainings are not going to
change, suggests the leadershiphad prioritized the integrity of
the training over the safety ofthe employee.
SPEAKER_00 (27:00):
Exactly.
And the most damning quoteregarding institutional support
came from Executive DirectorPaul Forbes, who dismissed
concerns about the raciallydivisive meetings by stating, I
am not concerned because thischancellor truly has our back.
SPEAKER_01 (27:14):
Wow, that explicitly links the tolerated hostile
behavior to the highest level ofDOE administration, the final
policymaker.
SPEAKER_00 (27:23):
It does.
And this documented continuoussupervisory tolerance is what
allowed the appellate court toreverse the district court on
the Minnell issue.
SPEAKER_01 (27:30):
So how did the Second Circuit frame this
sustained inaction as amunicipal custom?
SPEAKER_00 (27:34):
They applied the doctrine of constructive
acquiescence or inaction.
The standard is high.
The harassment must bepersistent and widespread.
When misconduct reaches thatlevel and senior policymaking
officials fail to intervene,their inaction implies
constructive acquiescence ortacit authorization of the
offensive acts.
SPEAKER_01 (27:52):
So the court essentially said the DOE didn't
need a formal written rulesaying be hostile to white
employees.
By consistently ignoring,condoning, and failing to curb
the pervasive patternedmisconduct that was reported
upwards for over a year.
SPEAKER_00 (28:08):
They made that misconduct its official
actionable custom.
SPEAKER_01 (28:12):
That's the absolute core of the legal success.
SPEAKER_00 (28:14):
It is.
The court found that a rationaljuror could infer that senior
policymaking officials had acustom of ignoring or condoning
the racial harassment ofCaucasian employees.
SPEAKER_01 (28:25):
That's a powerful legal distinction.
It moves the claim from just badmanagement, which isn't
actionable under Monell, todeliberate indifference or a
tacit policy ofnon-intervention, which is
actionable.
SPEAKER_00 (28:36):
Yes, and the causation link for Monel was
satisfied here by theorganizational structure.
Ababa Fernandez routinelycollected post-session surveys
and met regularly with DeputyChancellor Robinson, who then
conveyed findings to Carranza.
This established the crucialpaper trail proving that the
persistent hostility was knownat the highest levels.
The failure to act transformedprivate misconduct into public
(28:57):
policy.
SPEAKER_01 (28:58):
The court, in its conclusion, issued a very strong
warning to public employers.
SPEAKER_00 (29:03):
A huge one.
The Second Circuit explicitlywarned the DOE that when
employment trainings discuss anyrace, quote, with a constant
drumbeat of essentialist,deterministic, and negative
language, the organization risksliability for creating a hostile
work environment.
SPEAKER_01 (29:20):
So this whole case then hinges on the difference
between discrete adverseactions, the demotion and
discharge, which required directproof that race was the butt-for
cause tied to a formal policy.
Which she failed to prove.
And the cumulative harm of ahostile environment, which
required proof of sustainedsupervisory tolerance.
SPEAKER_00 (29:38):
And that tolerance allowed her to clear the Monell
hurdle through the mechanism ofinaction.
This ruling provides a vitalroadmap for future litigants,
showing that the lack ofinternal controls can be
considered a de facto policy ofdiscrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (29:51):
As we wrap up this deep dive into Chislet VNYC DOE,
let's transition to the majorlasting insights this case
offers the modern professionaland organization.
SPEAKER_00 (30:00):
First, we need to reiterate the immense legal
difficulty involved in Section1983 employment claims,
particularly that but fourcausation standard.
Right.
For any discrete action like ademotion, the employer only
needs to produce a legitimate,non-discriminatory reason.
If the plaintiff cannot providesufficient evidence that the
reason is a total fabrication,not just unfair, but a lie to
(30:23):
hide racial animus, that claimwill fail.
SPEAKER_01 (30:26):
And Chislett's failure to fully dismantle the
ineffective leadership pretexthighlights just how hard that
framework is to overcome.
SPEAKER_00 (30:33):
It really does.
SPEAKER_01 (30:34):
Second, the vital difference between the claims
that failed and the one thatsurvived.
The success wasn't based onproving a single action was
racist, but rather proving thatthe atmosphere itself was
racially hostile and cruciallythat the organization tolerated
it.
SPEAKER_00 (30:48):
Aaron Powell Right.
It tells us that the citysuccessfully hid its intent on
the piece of paper, the demotionform, but failed miserably to
hide its intent through the twoyears of documented workplace
atmosphere.
SPEAKER_01 (30:59):
And third, and this is probably most broadly
applicable for any manager orpublic official, emphasize the
power of inaction inestablishing municipal liability
under Minnel.
SPEAKER_00 (31:09):
A city agency can be held liable not just for what it
explicitly dictates, but forwhat it consistently fails to
do.
When supervisory personnel arefully aware of pervasive
patterned misconduct and chooseto ignore it, that inaction is
legally judged to be tacitauthorization.
SPEAKER_01 (31:27):
This case is a giant siren to all public agencies.
It says you can mandate anequity policy, but if the
execution of that policy,specifically the language and
methodology used in mandatorytraining, is so polarizing that
it creates a sustained, raciallyhostile environment for any
group, and you fail tointervene.
SPEAKER_00 (31:44):
You will face liability.
You have to audit your contentand actively monitor the
consequences of the trainingitself.
SPEAKER_01 (31:50):
The court's warning about the constant drumbeat of
essentialist, deterministic, andnegative language means
organizations can no longer justcopy-paste standardized DEI
materials without legal risk.
SPEAKER_00 (32:00):
Absolutely not.
They must audit content foressentialism and, crucially,
establish a rigorous, documentedprocess for responding to
complaints when the trainingitself appears to be the engine
of harassment.
SPEAKER_01 (32:13):
That brings us to our final provocative thought
for you to consider, buildingdirectly on the Second Circuit's
ruling.
SPEAKER_00 (32:19):
If a mandatory training program, one designed
with the highest intention todismantle systemic inequities,
utilizes language or techniquesthat immediately result in the
constant, essentialist, andnegative stereotyping of a
specific group, at what preciselegal and practical moment does
the municipality's failure toimmediately and aggressively
curtail that resulting hostilitytransition from mere managerial
(32:42):
negligence into legallyactionable, tacit authorization
for discrimination?
SPEAKER_01 (32:47):
This case makes it clear that the line between bad
management and unconstitutionalcustom is crossed when the
knowledge of the harassmentreaches high level policymakers
and they choose to protect thepolicy rather than the employee.
It is a heavy but essentialthought for anyone navigating
the modern professional andlegal landscape.
SPEAKER_00 (33:04):
It really is.
SPEAKER_01 (33:04):
That's a wrap on this deep dive.
Thank you for trusting us withyour sources.
We'll see you next time.
Welcome back to the Deep Dive, the show where we
take your complex stack ofsources, the articles, the
research, the legal filings, anddistill the most crucial nuggets
of knowledge and insight youneed to be truly well informed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:29):
That's right.
SPEAKER_01 (00:30):
Our mission today is highly specific, highly
technical, and frankly, it'sjust fascinating.
We're looking at the legalboundaries of workplace equity
policies.
Right.
How high is that legal bar forproving systemic discrimination
against a municipality?
And what specific, you know,nuanced set of facts allows one
claim to survive that high barwhen two others, based on the
(00:52):
exact same events, failcompletely?
SPEAKER_00 (00:54):
Aaron Powell It's a huge question.
We are deep in the weeds offederal civil rights law today,
specifically 42 USC section1983, and the concept of
municipal liability.
This whole deep dive reallycenters on this extremely thorny
intersection of mandatorydiversity and equity policies
and the subsequent workplacehostility they allegedly
fostered.
(01:15):
And this is not just a New Yorkstory.
Right.
The outcome here has massiveimplications for every public
sector employer, really anylarge organization running
mandatory, institution-wide biastraining nationwide.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (01:29):
Okay, so let's unpack this and get right into
the central case.
The focus of our entire analysisis the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals decision from September2025 in Chislet v.
New York City Department ofEducation, which we'll just call
the DOE from here on out.
Yep.
So this case involves LeslieChislett, a Caucasian former
executive employee who sued theDOE and its former Chancellor,
(01:50):
Richard Carranza, alleging racediscrimination.
SPEAKER_00 (01:53):
And her claim laid out this um comprehensive
narrative of racialdiscrimination that she says
resulted from the DOE's newequity agenda.
She filed three distinct claimsunder Section 1983.
SPEAKER_01 (02:04):
And what were they?
SPEAKER_00 (02:04):
First, she claimed disparate treatment,
specifically what amounted to ademotion.
Second, she claimed a hostilework environment.
And third, she claimedconstructive discharge,
basically arguing the conditionsforced her to quit.
SPEAKER_01 (02:15):
Right.
And the outcome, which is themain reason this case is in our
stack, is what requires suchdeep scrutiny.
The district court, the firstcourt, originally ruled in favor
of the DOE on all three counts.
It granted summary judgment.
But upon appeal, the SecondCircuit Court of Appeals
delivered this stunningly splitdecision.
SPEAKER_00 (02:34):
Aaron Ross Powell A really surprising one.
They affirmed the dismissal ofthe demotion and the
constructive discharge claims.
So those discrete adverseemployment actions.
Gone.
But critically, they vacated thesummary judgment and remanded
the hostile work environmentclaim back to the lower court
for trial.
SPEAKER_01 (02:52):
Aaron Powell So what does that mean in plain English?
SPEAKER_00 (02:54):
It means a rational jury could potentially find in
her favor on the hostilityclaim, but not the others.
SPEAKER_01 (03:00):
That split decision means there is a subtle but
absolutely crucial legaldistinction there.
And understanding the why ofthat success and failure, that's
the core of our listeners'mission today.
SPEAKER_00 (03:11):
And to understand any civil rights claim against a
government entity, we have tostart with the legal
cornerstone, Monell.
Absolutely.
The Monell requirement, it stemsfrom a Supreme Court case,
Monell v.
Department of Social Services.
It's the central legalconstraint here.
It's designed to shieldmunicipalities from lawsuits
based on the doctrine ofrespondent superior.
SPEAKER_01 (03:32):
Okay, so before we get to what we can use, explain
the doctrine we can't use.
What's Respondent Superior?
SPEAKER_00 (03:38):
That doctrine essentially means let the master
answer.
In typical private sectoremployment law, if a supervisor
discriminates, the company isoften automatically on the hook
because the supervisor wasacting within the scope of their
employment.
Monell explicitly says you can'tdo that with municipalities.
You can't just sue the city ofNew York because one bad
(03:58):
supervisor or one racistemployee acted improperly.
SPEAKER_01 (04:02):
That sounds like an impossible standard to meet.
I mean, how can a plaintiffpossibly prove discriminatory
intent runs through the entireDNA of a huge organization like
the DOE, especially without, youknow, a written rule that says
discriminate.
SPEAKER_00 (04:16):
And that's the challenge.
That's the whole ballgame.
To sue the DOE, the plaintiffhas to prove that the
constitutional violation, inthis case, racial discrimination
under the Equal ProtectionClause was caused by an official
municipal policy or custom.
SPEAKER_01 (04:30):
A policy or custom.
SPEAKER_00 (04:31):
Right.
And this policy or custom hasthree forms a written rule, a
decision made by a finalpolicymaker, or, and this is the
most relevant one here, apervasive and persistent pattern
of behavior that policymakerstolerated or ignored.
SPEAKER_01 (04:46):
So they sort of gave it the force of law by looking
the other way.
SPEAKER_00 (04:50):
Exactly.
This concept of tolerance orconstructive acquiescence, that
is the critical path Chisletttook to keep her one claim
alive.
SPEAKER_01 (04:59):
So the distinction is between just random bad
behavior and systemicinstitutionalized behavior.
We need to see how she built hercase to prove that the pervasive
hostility was, in fact, aninstitutional custom that the
DOE itself authorized.
SPEAKER_00 (05:12):
That's it.
SPEAKER_01 (05:13):
Let's jump into section one and establish the
environment within the NYC DOEthat serves as the backdrop to
this whole conflict.
Who was Leslie Chislet and, youknow, how does she fit into the
DOE before this new agenda wasrolled out?
SPEAKER_00 (05:24):
Well, Chislet was a highly qualified, long-tenured
professional.
She had a master's degree, hadbeen with the DOE for over 14
years, and had a successfulhistory, specifically turning
around challenged schools.
SPEAKER_01 (05:37):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (05:38):
In 2017, she was serving as the executive
director of the AP for allprogram, which operated within
the Office of Equity and Access,or OEA.
SPEAKER_01 (05:47):
And the irony here is that the AP for all program
was itself dedicated to equityoutcomes, right?
It was targeting underservedstudents.
SPEAKER_00 (05:54):
Aaron Powell Exactly.
She was instrumental inachieving a huge victory for
equity, a 92% increase inadvanced placement course
participation across schools,which significantly improved
access for students of color whohad historically been
underrepresented in thoseclasses.
SPEAKER_01 (06:10):
So her commitment to and her success in achieving
these equitable outcomes isstrongly established in the
record.
SPEAKER_00 (06:16):
It is.
She's a committed professionalachieving the organization's
equity goals.
Yet even before the newchancellor arrived, there were
signs of, you know, internalracial friction.
It suggests a pre-existingclimate.
That's an important point.
In one early instance, hersubordinate, Akua Atafope, who
Chislet had criticized forperformance issues, reported
Chislet for allegedmicroaggressions.
SPEAKER_01 (06:39):
And what were those?
SPEAKER_00 (06:40):
Things like ignoring, dismissing, or
interrupting people of color.
So the DOE's own Office of EqualOpportunity investigated this
complaint.
And crucially, while they foundsome of her comments
inappropriate, they explicitlydetermined that they did not
rise to the level ofdiscrimination.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (06:56):
Okay.
So the foundation ofinterpersonal conflict was
already there, and it was oftenbeing framed in these racial
terms.
SPEAKER_00 (07:01):
It was.
Then in 2018, Chancellor RichardCarranza arrived and he ushered
in this massiveinstitutional-wide push for
racial equity that forms theessential policy backdrop of the
lawsuit.
Trevor Burrus, Right.
Carranza came with a clear anduh uncompromising mandate to
tackle racial and economicdisparities across the massive
DOE system.
The sources really capture theurgency of this.
(07:24):
He reportedly told staff thatanyone who drew a paycheck from
the DOE would either get onboard with my equity platform or
leave.
Wow.
That, quote, sets a tone thatis, you know, less about
discussion and more aboutmandatory compliance.
SPEAKER_01 (07:37):
Aaron Ross Powell That phrase suggests the policy
shift was treated as a kind ofinstitutional loyalty test.
And this wasn't just talk.
It was backed by significantfinancial investment.
SPEAKER_00 (07:47):
Aaron Powell Indeed.
The OEA, Chislit's owndepartment, became the central
engine for this platform.
It received a staggering$23million to develop and scale
mandatory implicit biastrainings for staff throughout
the city's massive schoolsystem.
And these trainings wereexplicitly described as the part
(08:08):
and parcel and the cornerstoneof Carranza's entire equity
agenda.
This confirms that the trainingsthemselves were an official
high-level municipal policydecision.
SPEAKER_01 (08:18):
And we also have evidence that this focus
translated directly intohigh-level staffing decisions,
showing that the organizationalpriority was really fixed on
racial outcomes.
SPEAKER_00 (08:26):
We do.
Sources note that Mayor deBlasio and Chancellor Carranza
were fixated on racial diversityin the leadership ranks.
We have this telling examplefrom executive superintendent
Maisha Ross Porter, who laterbecame Chancellor herself, and
she stated (08:39):
when I am selecting principals, teachers, or
leaders, after we make the list,we look at it and we count.
How many women, how many peopleof color, and why.
I look at the makeup and Iliterally count, and it's okay
for us to do that.
SPEAKER_01 (08:54):
That testimony is crucial.
I mean, it shows a policymakeracknowledging that demographic
outcomes are a deliberate,measured factor in official
selection processes.
That feeds directly intoChislet's argument that race was
not a neutral factor within theDOE culture.
SPEAKER_00 (09:08):
It connects the highest levels of the
administration directly to theidea that race was an overriding
factor in employment decisionsand organizational focus.
And this leads us directly tothe trainings themselves, which
Chislet claimed were noteducational but actively
exacerbated the already raciallycharged workplace.
SPEAKER_01 (09:25):
Okay, let's really dedicate some time to the
content of these implicit biastrainees, because the language
cited in the court records isthe very evidence that creates
this legally hostileenvironment.
SPEAKER_00 (09:34):
And the language cited is, well, it's shocking in
its specificity and its level ofessentialism.
SPEAKER_01 (09:40):
What do you mean by essentialism?
SPEAKER_00 (09:42):
It means treating race as a defining, unchangeable
essence of a person's behavior.
So in a mandatory training inMay 2018, instructors told
participants that whitecolleagues must take a step back
and yield to colleagues ofcolor, and most powerfully, to
recognize that values of whiteculture are supremacist.
SPEAKER_01 (10:09):
That's an incredible statement coming from an
official city training program.
This isn't theoretical.
This is prescriptive behaviorbased on race.
SPEAKER_00 (10:16):
And it was codified in the training materials.
PowerPoint slides explicitlylisted traits associated with
internalized white superiority,including concepts that are
often, you know, lauded in aprofessional context.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (10:26):
Like what?
SPEAKER_00 (10:27):
Things like individualism, denial,
dominating space, andintellectualization.
SPEAKER_01 (10:32):
Aaron Powell So traits commonly associated with
Western professional norms, likepursuing independent thought or
relying on objective data werebeing redefined within this
official DOE context as symptomsof internal racial toxicity.
SPEAKER_00 (10:46):
That's precisely the reframing that creates the
alleged hostility.
The May 2018 retreat featured aneven more explicit white
supremacy culture list.
It asserted that the Protestantwork ethic and devotion to the
written word were examples ofwhite supremacy.
SPEAKER_01 (11:02):
We'd have to stop you there.
Devotion to the written word inan educational institution.
SPEAKER_00 (11:07):
That's what the record shows.
The list also includedperfectionism, sense of urgency,
and objectivity.
SPEAKER_01 (11:13):
Objectivity.
This is a crucial hinge pointfor the lawsuit.
When you name things likeperfectionism or objectivity as
inherent parts of whitesupremacy culture, you are
essentially telling whiteemployees that their efforts to
adhere to high standards or toseek factual neutrality are
rooted in a harmfuldiscriminatory ideology.
SPEAKER_00 (11:31):
It fundamentally redefines workplace critique and
expectation.
SPEAKER_01 (11:34):
Yes, turns professional standards into
grounds for ideological shaming.
SPEAKER_00 (11:37):
And that's what happened to Chislet personally.
During a QA, instructors toldher directly that her interest
in excellence was perfectionismand consistent with white
supremacy.
Wow.
Furthermore, the seniorexecutive director of the OEA,
Dr.
Ruby Ababio Fernandez, who wasone of Chislet's future
supervisors, set thedepartmental tone by declaring:
(11:58):
there is white toxicity in theair and we all breathe it in.
SPEAKER_01 (12:02):
And when a senior leader uses such blunt language
in a professional setting, itgrants tacit permission for
subordinates to use that samelanguage, or worse, in their
daily interactions.
SPEAKER_00 (12:11):
Exactly.
And the hostility escalated fromrhetorical to physical singling
out.
At a mandatory June 2018training, participants were
instructed to answer questionsabout their white privilege, and
then they were physically linedup to reveal the dividing color
line of privileges that favoredwhites.
SPEAKER_01 (12:28):
So it's a public physical division and shaming
mechanism based solely on race.
SPEAKER_00 (12:33):
Yes.
And when Chislet, feeling deeplyuncomfortable, tried to opt out
of an exercise, she declined tolist white values.
She faced immediate andaggressive peer retaliation that
was actively condoned by thefacilitators.
What happened?
The shaming was immediate andpublic.
A participant publicly calledher a horrible person who did
(12:54):
not deserve to be working withchildren in New York City.
And the crucial piece, thefacilitator backed up the
accuser.
SPEAKER_01 (13:01):
They didn't step in.
SPEAKER_00 (13:01):
Quite the opposite.
The facilitator stated thatfailure to stand up to people
like Chislett who disagree withthese views, children's lives
would be at stake.
SPEAKER_01 (13:10):
So the message was clear.
Objecting to the trainingmethodology was the same as
sabotaging the educationalwelfare of children.
And in the court's view, thislack of supervisory defense
validated the hostility.
SPEAKER_00 (13:21):
It did.
SPEAKER_01 (13:22):
This first section establishes that the DOE
created, mandated, andfinancially backed a training
environment that encouraged theessentialist racial stereotyping
of white employees.
And when Chislet objected, shewas publicly labeled as a
dangerous obstacle, and theleadership just stood by.
SPEAKER_00 (13:38):
That is the foundation of the successful
hostile work environment claim.
It demonstrates that the sourceof the hostility was not random,
but tied directly to theinstitution's official mandatory
programming.
SPEAKER_01 (13:49):
Okay, now we move to section two.
How this highly chargedinstitutional environment bled
into Chislett's dailyoperations, crippling her
ability to manage and ultimatelyculminating in these adverse
employment actions.
Right.
How frequently was thisracialized discourse enforced
outside of those formal, youknow, mandatory training
(14:09):
sessions?
SPEAKER_00 (14:10):
The mandate was pervasive.
OEA employees were expected tohave racial conversations in
group settings approximatelyonce a month.
This was a sustaineddepartmental expectation that
kept the focus squarely onracial identity and the charged
language from the trainings.
SPEAKER_01 (14:25):
And this is where Chislet's ability to perform her
job essentially evaporated.
She couldn't perform basicsupervisory functions without
being racially targeted.
SPEAKER_00 (14:32):
The record is very clear on this.
When she attempted simpleperformance management like
asking her subordinate, BiancaRenee, why she was late, Renee
immediately accused Chislet ofmaking a race-based judgment
fueled by her white privilege.
SPEAKER_01 (14:47):
So she couldn't even ask why someone was late.
SPEAKER_00 (14:49):
Renee added that Chislet could not be trusted.
And this was a consistentpattern.
When Chislet disciplined ormanaged subordinates, she was
routinely labeled white andfragile.
SPEAKER_01 (15:00):
So any attempt by the white supervisor to enforce
standards or accountability wasinstantly reframed by the
subordinate as an act of racialaggression.
That sounds like the definitionof an unbearable managerial
environment.
SPEAKER_00 (15:12):
It creates an unworkable system where
performance management isimpossible without risking a
career-ending accusation.
The hostility became so acutethat Chislet finally complained
to her team that the environmentwas becoming almost unbearable.
SPEAKER_01 (15:25):
And the response to that specific choice of words is
telling.
SPEAKER_00 (15:28):
It is.
It weaponizes the concept ofsuffering itself.
Renee responded with, How dareyou use the word unbearable?
There is black people dying inthe street.
You don't have the right to usethat term.
You're coming from the positionof white privilege and white
supremacy.
SPEAKER_01 (15:43):
So it suggests Chislet's own experience of pain
was racially illegitimate.
SPEAKER_00 (15:48):
It did.
And again, Chislet complained toher supervisors who offered no
relief or intervention.
SPEAKER_01 (15:53):
And we also have evidence that this rhetoric
extended beyond just Chislet,right?
It shows a general atmosphere ofthis kind of sentiment, which
strengthens the objective testfor a hostile work environment.
SPEAKER_00 (16:05):
Yes, the case cites an incident involving a white
adjacent colleague.
This was someone of mixed-raceparentage who had married a
white man and adopted blackdaughters.
After this colleague monitoredRenee's productivity, Chislet
overheard Renee call her a slavemaster, and another employee
labeled her a white dominantleader.
SPEAKER_01 (16:24):
And that incident is crucial because it shows the
hostility was pervasive andorganizational, not just some
personal feud between Chisletand Renee.
These facts, the institutionaltraining, the targeted personal
critique, the refusal ofmanagement to intervene, they
all build the case for severeand pervasive hostility.
Let's move to the demotion,which is the discrete action
(16:47):
that forms claim one.
SPEAKER_00 (16:48):
The demotion occurred on March 20th, 2019.
Her supervisors, Dr.
Ababa Fernandez and CourtneyWingfield, removed all of
Chislett's supervisoryresponsibility.
All of them.
All of them.
Her pay and title remain thesame, but she was stripped of
her core function, going fromsupervising 15 people to
supervising no one.
And the legal standard confirmsthat this is a significant
(17:10):
diminution of duties andtherefore qualifies as an
adverse employment action.
SPEAKER_01 (17:14):
Right.
The DOE, of course, needed tooffer a legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason forthis action to defend itself.
What was their rationale?
SPEAKER_00 (17:21):
Aaron Powell Their stated reason was entirely on
its face neutral.
The supervisors claimed the teamneeded time to heal, and that
the decision was based onfeedback from nearly every
member of the team, that Chisletwas an ineffective leader who
created chaos and a negativework environment.
SPEAKER_01 (17:37):
And critically, what was the nature of that feedback?
SPEAKER_00 (17:40):
Well, Wingfield testified that the majority of
this negative feedback cited wasnot racial in nature.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (17:45):
Okay.
And the optics of the subsequentpersonnel shuffle also provided
the appearance of a non-racialmanagerial reorganization.
SPEAKER_00 (17:53):
Aaron Powell It did.
Within two days of Chislet beingneutralized, many of her duties
were immediately transferred toAkua Adiphope.
SPEAKER_01 (18:00):
The same subordinate who had initiated the first
microaggression complaintagainst her.
SPEAKER_00 (18:04):
The very same.
So this move suggests anofficial endorsement of
Adiphope's side of the conflict,regardless of the official
non-racial justification forChislet's demotion.
SPEAKER_01 (18:14):
Then the final dramatic chapter was the staff
retreat in May 2019, whichfollowed media attention.
SPEAKER_00 (18:22):
Yes.
Chislet, having retained legalcounsel, had spoken anonymously
to the New York Post about thehostile environment and the
white supremacy culturetraining.
Articles were published just afew days before the retreat.
SPEAKER_01 (18:33):
So the DOE knew one of their employees had spoken to
the press.
SPEAKER_00 (18:36):
They were well aware.
And this retreat, it became apublic witch hunt.
SPEAKER_01 (18:40):
How so?
SPEAKER_00 (18:41):
At the May 23rd retreat, OEA executive director
Paul Forbes, instead ofdefending the organization
against press leaks, he spoke ofindividuals sitting amongst us,
alongside of whiteness, who wereopposing the equity work.
SPEAKER_01 (18:54):
So he is targeting the leaker.
SPEAKER_00 (18:55):
Then Dionka Renee addressed Chislet by name,
stating Chislet was prohibitingthis work from happening.
Adafolk and others stood up andtold Chislet she was not willing
to do the equity work and thatshe should just go.
SPEAKER_01 (19:08):
For how long did this go on?
SPEAKER_00 (19:10):
About 15 minutes.
A direct, public, sustainedattack on her character and
professional loyalty.
SPEAKER_01 (19:16):
And the result.
SPEAKER_00 (19:16):
She left humiliated, frightened, and in tears.
She required short-termdisability leave and felt
compelled by the environment toresign in September 2019.
And that act of resignation thatforms the basis of claim three
constructive discharge.
SPEAKER_01 (19:31):
The facts certainly paint a picture of an
intolerable environment, butlegally, that environment wasn't
enough to sustain the demotionclaim or the constructive
discharge claim.
Let's pivot to section three anddissect the court's rigorous
analysis of why those two claimsfailed.
This is essential tounderstanding the law's high
burden.
It is.
Okay.
Claim one was the discriminatorydemotion.
(19:54):
The crucial legal standard underSection 1983 for discrete
adverse actions is but forcausation.
Chislitt had to prove that racewas the determinative reason,
not just one of several reasons,for her demotion.
SPEAKER_00 (20:07):
And this is where we really need to unpack the
McDonnell Douglas burdenshifting framework.
It's a three stage test used toevaluate claims of
discrimination based on indirectevidence.
SPEAKER_01 (20:18):
Walk us through the three stages in the context of
Chislet.
SPEAKER_00 (20:21):
Stage one.
The plaintiff must establish aprima facie case of
discrimination.
This is relatively easy.
Chislet, as a Caucasian person,is a member of a protected class
when alleging reversediscrimination.
She was qualified for her job,she suffered an adverse
employment action, and thecircumstances suggest
discriminatory motive.
SPEAKER_01 (20:39):
She checked all those boxes.
SPEAKER_00 (20:40):
She satisfied stage one.
So stage two, the burden shiftsto the employer, the DOE, to
articulate a legitimate,non-discriminatory reason for
the action.
SPEAKER_01 (20:50):
And what did they say?
SPEAKER_00 (20:51):
The DOE satisfied this by presenting Wingfield's
testimony.
They cited the pattern ofnegative feedback from the team
about Chislet's effectiveness,inconsistency, and creating a
negative work environment.
On paper, that's a legitimatereason.
SPEAKER_01 (21:05):
Which brings us to stage three.
SPEAKER_00 (21:06):
Right.
The burden shifts back toChislet to prove that the DOE
stated reason ineffectiveleadership was merely a pretext
for actual racialdiscrimination.
And this is the stage where thedemotion claim failed.
Why?
Precisely.
The court acknowledged theevidence of racial hostility,
but Chislet failed to meet thehigh burden of proving that
(21:26):
Winkfield and Ababa Fernandez,the supervisors responsible for
the demotion, were motivated byrace when they made that
decision.
SPEAKER_01 (21:34):
So it wasn't enough that the environment was
hostile.
She had to prove the decisionmakers themselves acted on that
hostility.
SPEAKER_00 (21:40):
Yes, or that the nonracial reasons they cited
were either entirely false orjust insufficient to justify the
action.
SPEAKER_01 (21:46):
So even if the DOE had a broad discriminatory
culture, she couldn't prove thatthose specific managers acted
based on that culture ratherthan the documented PEM feedback
about her leadership style.
The court isn't assessing if theemployer was fair, only if the
stated reason was the truereason.
SPEAKER_00 (22:04):
Correct.
The court found Chislet failedto produce evidence that the
persons responsible for thedecision were motivated by
racial discrimination.
Winkfield, who is alsoCaucasian, testified the
feedback was primarilynon-racial.
Chislet didn't effectivelyrefute that.
Thus, the court couldn'tconclude that race was the butt
for cause of the demotionitself.
SPEAKER_01 (22:25):
So summary judgment was affirmed for claim one.
SPEAKER_00 (22:27):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (22:28):
Now claim three, the constructive discharge, also
failed, despite the workplaceatmosphere being demonstrably
toxic.
Why did the court say theconditions, as bad as they were,
weren't legally intolerableenough to compel resignation?
SPEAKER_00 (22:40):
The standard for constructive discharge is
incredibly demanding.
It is just about the highest barin employment law.
The plaintiff has to show theemployer intentionally created a
work atmosphere so intolerablethat a reasonable person would
have felt compelled to resign.
SPEAKER_01 (22:55):
Intentionally created.
So the employer must have setout to force the employee's
hand.
SPEAKER_00 (22:59):
Aaron Powell Yes.
The conditions have to be worsethan just difficult or
unpleasant.
We're talking about actionstypically reserved for active
campaigns to force someone out.
A massive, immediate pay cut, asudden relocation to an
unworkable office, explicitphysical threats.
SPEAKER_01 (23:16):
Trevor Burrus And what Chislet faced didn't rise
to that level.
SPEAKER_00 (23:18):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, while her work environment
was certainly found to beabusive and unpleasant, the
court determined that thehostility, though severe and
pervasive, was cumulative.
SPEAKER_01 (23:27):
And the cumulative nature prevented the court from
finding the requiredintentionality to compel her
resignation.
SPEAKER_00 (23:33):
Exactly.
She did not provide evidencethat the DOE had specifically
and with intent made herconditions intolerable to force
her resignation.
The hostile environment wasdeemed an unfortunate sustained
consequence of the institutionalpolicies, but not an intentional
tool of separation.
SPEAKER_01 (23:51):
So that claim also failed.
SPEAKER_00 (23:53):
Summary judgment affirmed for claim three.
SPEAKER_01 (23:55):
This highlights the paradox.
The facts were severe enough tocause her to quit, and severe
enough to qualify as a hostileenvironment, yet not severe or
intentional enough to meet thathighest legal standard for
constructive discharge.
SPEAKER_00 (24:08):
The difference is that narrow, and that's why
legal nuance matters.
Which brings us to claim two,the hostile work environment
claim, the one that survived andwas sent back for trial.
SPEAKER_01 (24:19):
Right.
And this success hinged entirelyon meeting the objective
hostility standard andsuccessfully tying that
hostility to the municipalityunder Monell.
SPEAKER_00 (24:27):
That's it.
SPEAKER_01 (24:28):
Let's focus on the objective standard first.
The court found that a rationaljuror could find the workplace
objectively hostile based on thetotality of the circumstances.
What specific elements ofChislett's mosaic of evidence
were most effective here?
SPEAKER_00 (24:41):
The court emphasized the sheer volume and
institutional backing of theabuse.
The mosaic included, first, theconstant drumbeat of negative
generalizations about whitepeople delivered during
mandatory DOE-sanctionedtrainings.
SPEAKER_01 (24:55):
So this wasn't isolated, it was the curriculum.
SPEAKER_00 (24:57):
It was the curriculum.
Second, the highly targetedabuse, like telling her that her
interest in excellence wasperfectionism and consistent
with white supremacy.
Third, the fact that ordinarysupervisory duties, like
questioning lateness, resultedin constant concentrated
comments labeling her white andfragile or racist.
Yeah.
And fourth, the supervisorynon-intervention.
(25:19):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (25:19):
And that non-intervention is critical
because it leads us directly tothe Monell policy hurdle, which
the first court thought she hadfailed to clear.
The district court essentiallysaid the hostility was
departmental, not official DOEpolicy.
SPEAKER_00 (25:33):
And the appellate court fundamentally disagreed.
The question became how did shesuccessfully connect the
pervasive harassment perpetratedby coworkers and training
facilitators, who are not finalpolicymakers, to the
municipality itself, therebysatisfying Manel.
SPEAKER_01 (25:48):
How did she do it?
SPEAKER_00 (25:49):
She did it through the concept of constructive
acquiescence in action.
SPEAKER_01 (25:52):
Okay, so let's establish the prerequisite, the
imputation requirement.
She had to show the DOE wasaware of the problem.
SPEAKER_00 (26:00):
And she had overwhelming evidence.
She complained repeatedly tomultiple supervisors: Robinson,
Ababio Fernandez, Winkfield,Kazi, starting in spring 2018,
sometimes in writing, thehostility was not a secret.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (26:14):
She even escalated it beyond her direct
supervisors.
SPEAKER_00 (26:16):
Aaron Ross Powell She did.
She had legal counsel contactthe DOE in April 2019 about the
hostile environment, and theDOE's own internal investigation
found her claims of a raciallycharged environment plausible.
Yet they did not take any stepsto address the complaints.
SPEAKER_01 (26:32):
And the response from her supervisors wasn't just
passive neglect, it was oftenacted dismissal or even
scolding.
SPEAKER_00 (26:37):
The response demonstrated a deliberate
indifference.
Supervisors either scolded her,tolerated the racist behavior,
or explicitly put the onus ofstopping the harassment on
Chislet herself.
Her leadership coach, Winkfield,even told her the trainings were
not going to change.
SPEAKER_01 (26:52):
That, quote, the trainings are not going to
change, suggests the leadershiphad prioritized the integrity of
the training over the safety ofthe employee.
SPEAKER_00 (27:00):
Exactly.
And the most damning quoteregarding institutional support
came from Executive DirectorPaul Forbes, who dismissed
concerns about the raciallydivisive meetings by stating, I
am not concerned because thischancellor truly has our back.
SPEAKER_01 (27:14):
Wow, that explicitly links the tolerated hostile
behavior to the highest level ofDOE administration, the final
policymaker.
SPEAKER_00 (27:23):
It does.
And this documented continuoussupervisory tolerance is what
allowed the appellate court toreverse the district court on
the Minnell issue.
SPEAKER_01 (27:30):
So how did the Second Circuit frame this
sustained inaction as amunicipal custom?
SPEAKER_00 (27:34):
They applied the doctrine of constructive
acquiescence or inaction.
The standard is high.
The harassment must bepersistent and widespread.
When misconduct reaches thatlevel and senior policymaking
officials fail to intervene,their inaction implies
constructive acquiescence ortacit authorization of the
offensive acts.
SPEAKER_01 (27:52):
So the court essentially said the DOE didn't
need a formal written rulesaying be hostile to white
employees.
By consistently ignoring,condoning, and failing to curb
the pervasive patternedmisconduct that was reported
upwards for over a year.
SPEAKER_00 (28:08):
They made that misconduct its official
actionable custom.
SPEAKER_01 (28:12):
That's the absolute core of the legal success.
SPEAKER_00 (28:14):
It is.
The court found that a rationaljuror could infer that senior
policymaking officials had acustom of ignoring or condoning
the racial harassment ofCaucasian employees.
SPEAKER_01 (28:25):
That's a powerful legal distinction.
It moves the claim from just badmanagement, which isn't
actionable under Monell, todeliberate indifference or a
tacit policy ofnon-intervention, which is
actionable.
SPEAKER_00 (28:36):
Yes, and the causation link for Monel was
satisfied here by theorganizational structure.
Ababa Fernandez routinelycollected post-session surveys
and met regularly with DeputyChancellor Robinson, who then
conveyed findings to Carranza.
This established the crucialpaper trail proving that the
persistent hostility was knownat the highest levels.
The failure to act transformedprivate misconduct into public
(28:57):
policy.
SPEAKER_01 (28:58):
The court, in its conclusion, issued a very strong
warning to public employers.
SPEAKER_00 (29:03):
A huge one.
The Second Circuit explicitlywarned the DOE that when
employment trainings discuss anyrace, quote, with a constant
drumbeat of essentialist,deterministic, and negative
language, the organization risksliability for creating a hostile
work environment.
SPEAKER_01 (29:20):
So this whole case then hinges on the difference
between discrete adverseactions, the demotion and
discharge, which required directproof that race was the butt-for
cause tied to a formal policy.
Which she failed to prove.
And the cumulative harm of ahostile environment, which
required proof of sustainedsupervisory tolerance.
SPEAKER_00 (29:38):
And that tolerance allowed her to clear the Monell
hurdle through the mechanism ofinaction.
This ruling provides a vitalroadmap for future litigants,
showing that the lack ofinternal controls can be
considered a de facto policy ofdiscrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (29:51):
As we wrap up this deep dive into Chislet VNYC DOE,
let's transition to the majorlasting insights this case
offers the modern professionaland organization.
SPEAKER_00 (30:00):
First, we need to reiterate the immense legal
difficulty involved in Section1983 employment claims,
particularly that but fourcausation standard.
Right.
For any discrete action like ademotion, the employer only
needs to produce a legitimate,non-discriminatory reason.
If the plaintiff cannot providesufficient evidence that the
reason is a total fabrication,not just unfair, but a lie to
(30:23):
hide racial animus, that claimwill fail.
SPEAKER_01 (30:26):
And Chislett's failure to fully dismantle the
ineffective leadership pretexthighlights just how hard that
framework is to overcome.
SPEAKER_00 (30:33):
It really does.
SPEAKER_01 (30:34):
Second, the vital difference between the claims
that failed and the one thatsurvived.
The success wasn't based onproving a single action was
racist, but rather proving thatthe atmosphere itself was
racially hostile and cruciallythat the organization tolerated
it.
SPEAKER_00 (30:48):
Aaron Powell Right.
It tells us that the citysuccessfully hid its intent on
the piece of paper, the demotionform, but failed miserably to
hide its intent through the twoyears of documented workplace
atmosphere.
SPEAKER_01 (30:59):
And third, and this is probably most broadly
applicable for any manager orpublic official, emphasize the
power of inaction inestablishing municipal liability
under Minnel.
SPEAKER_00 (31:09):
A city agency can be held liable not just for what it
explicitly dictates, but forwhat it consistently fails to
do.
When supervisory personnel arefully aware of pervasive
patterned misconduct and chooseto ignore it, that inaction is
legally judged to be tacitauthorization.
SPEAKER_01 (31:27):
This case is a giant siren to all public agencies.
It says you can mandate anequity policy, but if the
execution of that policy,specifically the language and
methodology used in mandatorytraining, is so polarizing that
it creates a sustained, raciallyhostile environment for any
group, and you fail tointervene.
SPEAKER_00 (31:44):
You will face liability.
You have to audit your contentand actively monitor the
consequences of the trainingitself.
SPEAKER_01 (31:50):
The court's warning about the constant drumbeat of
essentialist, deterministic, andnegative language means
organizations can no longer justcopy-paste standardized DEI
materials without legal risk.
SPEAKER_00 (32:00):
Absolutely not.
They must audit content foressentialism and, crucially,
establish a rigorous, documentedprocess for responding to
complaints when the trainingitself appears to be the engine
of harassment.
SPEAKER_01 (32:13):
That brings us to our final provocative thought
for you to consider, buildingdirectly on the Second Circuit's
ruling.
SPEAKER_00 (32:19):
If a mandatory training program, one designed
with the highest intention todismantle systemic inequities,
utilizes language or techniquesthat immediately result in the
constant, essentialist, andnegative stereotyping of a
specific group, at what preciselegal and practical moment does
the municipality's failure toimmediately and aggressively
curtail that resulting hostilitytransition from mere managerial
(32:42):
negligence into legallyactionable, tacit authorization
for discrimination?
SPEAKER_01 (32:47):
This case makes it clear that the line between bad
management and unconstitutionalcustom is crossed when the
knowledge of the harassmentreaches high level policymakers
and they choose to protect thepolicy rather than the employee.
It is a heavy but essentialthought for anyone navigating
the modern professional andlegal landscape.
SPEAKER_00 (33:04):
It really is.
SPEAKER_01 (33:04):
That's a wrap on this deep dive.
Thank you for trusting us withyour sources.
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.