The company called it a stray remark - the court let the claim proceed
A federal judge refused to throw out most claims against Universal Protection Service after a Nigerian security officer alleged national-origin discrimination and retaliation.
The judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on August 18, 2026 that the former security officer could move ahead with claims under Title VII and the DC Human Rights Act. She dismissed only the worker's Family and Medical Leave Act claims, and did so without prejudice, meaning the worker can try to refile them.
The company had asked the court to dismiss the whole case for failing to state a claim. That request mostly failed.
The worker, who is Nigerian, joined the company as a security officer in July 2019, according to the complaint. She says she asked for medical leave in late 2020 to care for her disabled son, and that the company denied the request without proper notice or guidance. After that, she alleges, her working conditions fell apart.
The complaint describes about a year of hostility. She claims a supervisor ignored her, falsely marked her late, and once wrote her up for lateness on a day she was not scheduled to work. On another occasion, she alleges, a supervisor burst into a restroom while she was using it to accuse her of hiding. When she reported the treatment to Human Resources, she says the representative yelled at her, called her a "troublemaker," and hung up.
One remark carried the discrimination claim past dismissal. According to the complaint, a manager responded to her report of mistreatment by saying, "This isn't Nigeria where you're from; people can talk to you however they want." The company called it a stray remark by someone who made no decisions about her job. The judge disagreed for now, writing that the comment, followed by a suspension and firing, "plausibly supports an inference of discrimination."
Timing drove the retaliation claim. The worker alleges she filed formal discrimination complaints between July and September 2021. She was suspended in October and fired in November. The court called that gap close enough to support a plausible retaliation claim.
The court also weighed how the complaint was handled inside the company. It said the alleged phone call - the yelling and hang-up - helped show that management knew about the worker's complaints. The judge let a hostile work environment claim proceed too, pointing to a pattern of intrusive incidents rather than one severe act.
None of the allegations has been proven. The ruling only decides the case can continue.
