The VP said he was "glad we're recording this." Fifteen days later, the worker was gone
His boss agreed on tape that the pushback was about race, a new lawsuit alleges. Weeks later, the nonprofit fired him.
A former programs manager at Equitas Health claims the Ohio-based LGBTQ+ healthcare nonprofit terminated him after he repeatedly reported racial discrimination - and while his disability accommodation renewal was still with his doctor.
The complaint, filed November 2, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, details what the worker says happened after he became the first Black man to lead his department.
The role and the resistance
Equitas Health hired the worker in June 2023 as associate director of health advocacy at $95,000 a year, according to the filing. After a July 2024 restructuring, he moved into a programs manager role overseeing four Ryan White HIV/AIDS grants worth more than $13 million combined - and took a pay cut to roughly $85,000 in the process, the complaint alleges.
The problems, according to the filing, started almost immediately. Team members went around him to his supervisor. They took screenshots of his personal social media and circulated them at work. They listened outside his office door during private meetings. In one meeting, the complaint alleges, a colleague "basically told me to shut up."
The worker says he reported the behavior repeatedly, describing it as racial bias from a predominantly white team that would not accept his authority. According to the complaint, the organization did nothing effective to stop it.
The recording
Then came February 4, 2025. The worker's first performance appraisal - after more than seventeen months on the job - was recorded.
According to the complaint, the worker described "blatant racism, microaggressions, [and] targeting" he had experienced. His supervisor's boss, the vice president of programs, responded with what may prove to be the most consequential words in the case.
The VP called the worker's account "accurate," the complaint alleges. He acknowledged the worker had received "a lot of additional pushback that someone . . . who was not black . . . may not have received." He described the worker as "the first black man" in the role and said the team "struggled to accept" him as their leader.
"I'm glad we're recording this so that it is part of the record," the VP said, according to the filing.
What happened next
Within two days, the complaint alleges, the VP issued directives requiring the worker to copy leadership on every team communication, record all team meetings, and forward meeting invitations by end of day. Nine days after the recorded appraisal, the VP requested a formal HR investigation into the worker's leadership, the filing states.
According to the complaint, no other manager in the department faced comparable monitoring.
The worker alleges the investigation drew feedback from the same team members whose behavior he had flagged as racially motivated - and that one of the "common themes" it surfaced was his "frequent personal appointments." Those were the disability-related medical visits Equitas had already been asked to accommodate, the complaint states.
The accommodation gap
The disability strand runs alongside the race claims. The worker has two medical conditions that qualify as disabilities under the ADA, according to the complaint. In mid-2024, his doctor certified that he needed to work from home during flare-ups and required time off for medical appointments one to two times per month.
Equitas approved the remote-work arrangement through February 28, 2025, the filing states - but never addressed the recurring medical appointments his provider had certified.
In December 2024, while the accommodation was still active, his direct supervisor issued him a written warning for "absenteeism, tardiness and lack of communication," citing missed meetings that fell within the accommodation period, the complaint alleges. The worker had never received a verbal warning, formal coaching, or performance improvement plan before that point, according to the filing.
He objected in writing, telling HR he felt "targeted."
The final fifteen days
On March 11, 2025, the worker met with HR, the complaint states. He told them that holding a team member accountable would be "perceived as getting attacked because of how I present" - which he explained meant "[a]s a black man."
That afternoon, according to the filing, HR emailed him renewal forms for his expired accommodation. The next morning, he confirmed he had sent the forms to his doctor.
Fifteen days after that HR meeting - and fourteen days after he submitted the renewal paperwork - Equitas fired him by Microsoft Teams call, the complaint alleges. The organization did not wait for his doctor's response, follow up on the renewal, or make any accommodation decision before letting him go, according to the filing.
The termination document cited "continued deficiency" in budgeting, project management, grant administration, and people leadership, the complaint states. But seven weeks earlier, the worker's own appraisal had rated him as meeting expectations in three of four performance categories, and his supervisor had committed to "continue to work together to build that skill" on budgeting, according to the filing.
The organization's own disciplinary policy sets out a progressive sequence - formal coaching, first written warning, second written warning with a last-chance agreement, then discharge, the complaint alleges. Equitas skipped the second warning and last-chance step entirely.
The claims
The complaint brings nine counts under federal and Ohio law, alleging race discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The worker is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and either reinstatement or front pay.
For HR teams, the case reads as a step-by-step illustration of what happens when an employer responds to a discrimination complaint by scrutinizing the person who complained rather than the complaint itself.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
