Claremont McKenna College Faces Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit in Claremont California

Lawsuit filed by two former college employees alleges age and race discrimination workplace harassment and retaliation following complaints to Human Resources

CLAREMONT, CA, UNITED STATES, November 9, 2026 /EINPresswire.com/ — Two former employees of Claremont McKenna College have filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination, race discrimination, workplace harassment, and retaliation arising from their employment at the college in Claremont, California. The complaint describes a series of workplace incidents involving alleged intimidation, inappropriate comments, threats, and concerns about the handling of internal complaints. The former employees contend that after reporting these issues to college administrators and Human Resources, they ultimately lost their jobs.

The lawsuit was filed on July 31, 2026, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The case is identified as Case No. 26PSCV02648.

According to the complaint, one employee began working at the college in November 2018 as an administrative assistant supporting Policy Lab and academic programs. In July 2023, the employee accepted an assignment in the Registrar’s Office and was promoted to Assistant Registrar in early 2024 while continuing to perform responsibilities for Policy Lab. The complaint states that the employee received favorable performance evaluations, including a rating of exceeding expectations in 2023 and meeting expectations in 2024. The employee was not placed on a performance improvement plan or given a final warning before the events leading to termination.

The second employee joined the college in June 2024 as an Associate Registrar in the Registrar’s Office. The complaint alleges that this employee successfully completed the probationary period and received a performance review in August 2025. Like the other employee, this individual allegedly had not received a formal performance improvement plan or warning indicating that their employment was in jeopardy.

The complaint alleges that both employees experienced an increasingly difficult workplace environment because of the conduct of a supervisor. The alleged behavior included intimidation, threats concerning employees’ jobs, humiliation, disparaging remarks, ambiguous instructions, and conduct that created tension among members of the department. The employees also describe alleged race-related comments and statements that they contend contributed to a hostile and uncomfortable working environment.

As the situation continued, the employees say they became increasingly concerned about their working conditions and the effect of the supervisor’s conduct. They eventually brought their concerns to the college’s Human Resources department. In October 2024, they allegedly submitted a written complaint and met with HR leadership to discuss the workplace issues. Their reported concerns included threats, race-related remarks, confidentiality, insufficient training, unclear expectations, anxiety, and emotional distress. They requested an investigation, protection from further mistreatment, and appropriate corrective measures.

The complaint states that the employees continued participating in meetings with Human Resources during the following months, with approximately six or seven meetings taking place. They allege that despite repeatedly raising their concerns, the problems were not adequately resolved. They also contend that information disclosed during confidential HR discussions was later repeated by the supervisor, creating further concern about how their complaints were being handled and whether the information they provided was being kept confidential.

In August 2025, the supervisor was removed from the Registrar position but remained employed by the college as a Senior Associate Registrar. According to the complaint, the change did not fully resolve the employees’ concerns because the former supervisor allegedly continued to exercise substantial influence within the department.

The employees subsequently worked under new departmental leadership. The complaint describes efforts to establish clearer responsibilities and track assignments through Microsoft Planner. The employees allege that they completed their assigned tasks and were current or ahead of schedule on work that was due when their employment ended. They dispute any suggestion that their performance justified their eventual termination.

The complaint also describes a later incident involving the supervisor’s alleged treatment of a student. One employee reportedly raised concerns about the incident. The employee subsequently faced an accusation of harassment following a separate interaction involving the supervisor. According to the complaint, Human Resources interviewed the employee but did not identify misconduct that warranted termination.

On December 15, 2025, the college terminated both employees. The complaint states that the college described the decisions as part of a reorganization and maintained that the employees’ skills did not fit the requirements of newly created positions. The former employees dispute this explanation. They allege that the terminations were connected to their earlier complaints about workplace conduct and their participation in activities protected by California law. The complaint further alleges that replacement employees had already been selected for the positions.

One former employee alleges age discrimination and states that the employee was approximately 60 years old at the time of termination. The other former employee alleges race discrimination. Both claim that the college retaliated against them after they reported workplace concerns and sought assistance from Human Resources.

The lawsuit asserts claims for age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It also alleges that the college failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Other causes of action include negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, whistleblower retaliation under California Labor Code Section 1102.5, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The former employees seek compensation for alleged economic and non-economic harm, including lost wages, employment benefits, future earning capacity, and emotional distress. They also seek applicable statutory remedies, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and other relief available under California law.

Attorney Joseph Huprich of Huprich Law Firm, PC, represents the former employees in the action. The lawsuit places the college’s handling of workplace complaints, its response to allegations of misconduct, and the circumstances surrounding the two terminations at issue.

The case remains pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under Case No. 26PSCV02648. The allegations are claims made in the complaint and have not yet been proven in court. No finding of liability has been made against the defendants.

Joseph Huprich
Huprich Law Firm, P.C.
+1 909-766-2226
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn
Bluesky
Instagram
Facebook
YouTube
TikTok
X
Other

Expert Employment Law Advice In the Workplace

Media gallery