An arbitrator reinstated her, but the federal court saw it differently
A federal court granted Amtrak summary judgment after an officer's body camera footage undercut her racial discrimination and retaliation claims.
The officer, who is African American, had worked for Amtrak since 2012, earning commendations over more than a decade. That record came to an abrupt halt after two incidents at Union Station in Washington, DC.
The first, in November 2023, began when officers responded to a call about a disorderly individual in a wheelchair at the ticket counter. Body camera footage showed the officer exchange heated words with the man. After he reached back to brush away her finger, she struck him three times in the face with a closed fist. He fell from his wheelchair, bloodied.
No other officer on the scene initiated physical contact. She later admitted she should have handled it differently.
The second incident came in January 2024. While other officers silently escorted a disorderly woman from the station, the officer followed behind shouting insults - calling the woman a "hood rat" and mocking her shoes. Amtrak's chief of police later testified that "hood rat" is a "derogatory and inflammatory term." The comments continued after the woman was taken into custody. She later conceded: "Looking at the video, in hindsight everything I did was wrong."
Amtrak terminated her in March 2024, citing use-of-force and code-of-conduct violations.
She sued under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and the DC Human Rights Act, arguing the real motive was racial discrimination and retaliation for complaints she had filed about a white supervisor.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia granted Amtrak's motion on September 14, 2026, finding no reasonable jury could conclude the stated reasons were pretextual. The court noted the officer's attempts to minimise the incidents "strains credulity" given the body camera footage. It also rejected her claim that the supervisor influenced the termination decision, finding the chief of police independently reviewed the footage and made his own determination.
An arbitrator had previously ordered reinstatement, finding Amtrak lacked just cause to discharge her. Amtrak reinstated her in February 2026 without back pay. But the court held the arbitration outcome did not establish pretext, noting the arbitrator still left the suspension and denial of back pay in place.
The ruling rests on whether the employer honestly believed its stated reasons for termination - not whether it was objectively correct. An arbitrator disagreed with the penalty. That alone, the court held, did not mean a jury could find discrimination.
