A federal complaint says a workplace inclusion exercise turned into evidence in a discrimination suit
A former NYU staffer says a DEI exercise exposed her identity at work - and her firing followed weeks later.
Rachel Varley filed a federal complaint on May 25, 2026 against New York University and Hillel International, Inc., alleging she was fired because she is not Jewish, identifies as queer and non-binary, and uses she/they pronouns. The case sits in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and brings claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Varley worked as an administration aid at NYU's Bronfman Center of Jewish Student Life from January 16, 2024 to April 16, 2024. Her complaint names NYU and Hillel International as joint employers, saying the two shared a single HR function and split control over her hiring, pay, scheduling and supervision.
The story turns on a DEI training session on February 5, 2024. According to the filing, employees were asked to fill out a form listing their race, religion and sexuality. The answers were then displayed to the whole group. Varley says she had identified herself as queer and not Jewish, and that as one of the only non-Jewish staff in the division, colleagues could figure out which form was hers. She also used she/they pronouns in her email signature.
A week later, on February 12, 2024, Varley turned a student away from an employee-only meeting room. She alleges that student then texted one of her co-workers. According to the complaint, the message said he was "Trying to get someone fired" and that he "was successful with one employee (university employee, not Bronfman) so I'm gonna [sic] test my luck on this new Rachel that they hired." She says the same message tagged her with "#CeasefireNow" and "#FreeYemen" - labels she alleges he applied because she is not Jewish and identifies as queer and non-binary.
Varley says she complained to Rabbi Yehud Sarna, a supervisor, on February 21, 2024, and sent him the screenshots the next day. On April 12, 2024, a second student became hostile after she enforced a staff-only room policy, according to the complaint. She emailed three supervisors that day saying she felt targeted. Four days later, NYU fired her, citing "student complaints."
The complaint alleges those complaints were grounded in discriminatory animus and that NYU knew it. Varley also brings a retaliation claim, pointing to the gap of under a month between her internal complaint and her dismissal.
For HR leaders, the filing flags several risks worth a fresh look. The DEI exercise described in the complaint is the standout. Asking staff to write down their race, religion and sexuality, then putting those answers on display, is the kind of activity that can turn an inclusion session into evidence in a discrimination suit. The case also leans on a joint employer theory - a live issue for any HR function that runs payroll, hiring or supervision across affiliated entities. And it shows how a termination justified by "student complaints" - or any third-party feedback - can be reframed as pretext when the complainants share traits the employee does not.
Varley is represented by Brendan Tighe of Spasojevich Law, P.C. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, lost wages, lost benefits, front pay, attorneys' fees and costs. The EEOC issued right-to-sue letters for both defendants on February 26, 2026.
The allegations have not been tested in court. NYU and Hillel International have not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
