07-16-2026
Robert Lynn, a Black man, worked as a portfolio manager for the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) for a little over two years, receiving positive performance reviews. Following the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, Lynn’s manager, a White man, told Lynn that he did not believe in “Black Lives Matter.” Lynn said he understood that the supervisor was referring specifically to the BLM advocacy movement and did not understand the statement to mean that Black lives do not matter in a broader context.
With this manager’s support, Lynn applied for and received another BNY position that would offer him more job growth opportunities. He received the position over a White female applicant. Lynn did not report any concerns about discrimination to the bank at this time, but he did add a footnote to a company presentation indicating it was an “unsafe environment for black employees to advance.” BNY investigated this assertion but could not substantiate it.
Soon after the internal transfer, Lynn reportedly had performance issues in his new role. When he did not improve, Lynn looked for another BNY role. He applied for a different position but was not selected for the role. He then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. His BNY supervisor placed him on a performance improvement plan (PIP) for the ongoing performance issues in his role. Lynn responded to the PIP, stating he was continuing to be discriminated against based on his race. BNY laid Lynn off soon after his PIP began due to a department merger and because he was the poorest-performing employee in that position.
Lynn sued for race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Lynn’s claims after they were dismissed on summary judgment. The appellate court held that Lynn failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. Lynn’s allegation that he was replaced by a White man was insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination. The plaintiff also failed to explain why his supervisor laid him off based on his race just a few months after hiring him. The timing, along with the hirer and firer being the same person, constituted strong evidence that discrimination was not a motivating factor.
On the retaliation claim, Lynn pointed to the short window between his race discrimination complaint and his termination. However, Lynn failed to show that BNY’s proffered reason (poor performance) for eliminating his job was a pretext for race discrimination.
Takeaways: The Third Circuit decision reinforces that documenting legitimate performance issues before taking any adverse action will support employers when employees challenge those decisions.