On June 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Brenyah v. Columbia Hospital Corporation of Bay Area, affirming summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff’s race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, ADA disability discrimination, ADA failure-to-accommodate, ADA interference, and Section 1981 -but reversing and remanding her Title VII and Section 1981 hostile work environment claims for further proceedings.

Background

Brenda Brenyah, a Black woman and naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ghana, began working as a registered nurse at Corpus Christi Medical Center’s (CCMC) Bay Area Hospital in March 2017. Shortly after starting, she alleged that Hispanic nurses in her unit frequently mocked her and a Black colleague’s African food and accents, made derogatory comments about Black employees, and expressed overt preferences for Filipino employees. Brenyah reported the behavior to multiple supervisors, who she contends conducted an inadequate investigation and allowed the conduct to continue. She also alleged that supervisors retaliated against her by issuing disciplinary coaching and extending her probation.

In August 2017, Brenyah was in a car accident, took medical leave, and was later diagnosed with a herniated disc and torn knee ligament. While on leave, she sought treatment at a different CCMC facility during Hurricane Harvey, leading to a contentious interaction with on-duty personnel and her eventual escort off the premises by police. She never returned to work, instead sending a letter in March 2018 advising CCMC of her forced resignation and citing discrimination and retaliation.

Brenyah filed two EEOC charges and sued CCMC in 2021 asserting Title VII and Section 1981 race and national origin claims, ADA disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, and ADA interference claims. The district court granted summary judgment for CCMC across the board. This appeal followed.

Exhaustion: The Second Charge Was Untimely

As a threshold matter, the court held that Brenyah’s second EEOC charge—filed in February 2019—was untimely. Because her alleged discriminatory conduct ended no later than her March 21, 2018 resignation, the 180-day filing deadline expired in September 2018. Brenyah argued that a federal government shutdown tolled the deadline, but the court rejected that argument, noting that the EEOC’s own guidance extended submission deadlines only for documents the agency had requested—not for new charges. As a result, the court considered only claims within the scope of Brenyah’s first, timely charge.

Discrimination Claims: Pretext Evidence Fell Short

The court found that CCMC’s extension of Brenyah’s probation qualified as an adverse employment action—probationary employees were subject to termination without cause and did not accrue seniority—satisfying Brenyah’s prima facie case under Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. However, her discrimination claims failed because she could not demonstrate that CCMC’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the extension—documented time-management and documentation deficiencies—was a pretext for discrimination.

The court noted that the record directly contradicted Brenyah’s claim that she never received a time-management plan or coaching, and that her proposed comparators—two Hispanic nurses who had extended their shifts—had done so far less frequently than she had. Without evidence that nurses outside her protected class were treated differently under nearly identical circumstances, her disparate treatment theory could not survive.

ADA Claims: No Causal Link; No Accommodation Request

The court affirmed summary judgment on both the ADA disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims. The disability discrimination claim failed at the causation element: CCMC extended Brenyah’s probation before she developed her disability, severing any causal connection.

The failure-to-accommodate claim failed because Brenyah did not adequately put CCMC on notice that she needed accommodations when she sought to return to work. Her August 2017 communications referenced a doctor’s recommendation for light duty, but her subsequent communications through early 2018 focused on reorientation and training—not accommodations. Her own doctor’s records, which she transmitted to CCMC, showed that physical restrictions were only recommended through January 7, 2018, arguably signaling that no accommodation was needed by the time she sought to return.

Hostile Work Environment: Summary Judgment Reversed

The court reversed on Brenyah’s Title VII and Section 1981 hostile work environment claims, holding that she had raised genuine disputes of material fact on the two contested elements: severity/pervasiveness and the adequacy of CCMC’s remedial response.

On severity and pervasiveness, the court found that a reasonable jury could rule in Brenyah’s favor based on evidence that the harassing conduct—mocking of African food and accents, derogatory comments about Black employees, expressed racial preferences—occurred almost every shift and impaired her work performance. The court also considered second-hand harassment directed at Brenyah’s Black colleague, including a nurse telling him to stay twelve feet away due to his race, his being reassigned away from patients who did not want a Black nurse, and his being called racial slurs. Evidence from the Doctors Regional incident also counted, because CCMC employees’ conduct there led to disciplinary reports that had professional consequences for Brenyah at her place of employment.

On the employer’s response, the court found competing evidence sufficient to create a jury question. While CCMC investigated and offered Brenyah a transfer to a different unit, Brenyah produced evidence that the investigation was neither prompt, thorough, nor transparent. Among other things, a Black employee on the unit was not interviewed contrary to the supervisor’s assertion, no interview summaries were created despite standard practice, and Brenyah was told that “the cliques were not going anywhere”—suggesting the employer did not intend to end the conduct. The harassing behavior also continued after the investigation.

Practical Impact

For Texas employers, Brenyah reaffirms several core principles:

  • The EEOC charge filing deadline is strictly enforced, and a government shutdown does not toll the deadline for filing an initial charge.
  • Documented, contemporaneous performance issues remain a strong basis for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for adverse employment actions.
  • An employee’s failure to affirmatively request accommodations when returning from medical leave may defeat a failure-to-accommodate claim, particularly where the employee’s medical documentation suggests restrictions have expired.
  • Hostile work environment claims that involve frequent, racially-charged conduct—especially where the employer’s investigation is demonstrably flawed—are difficult to resolve on summary judgment.

A copy of the court’s opinion in Brenyah v. Columbia Hospital Corporation of Bay Area is available here.