A Black woman who was terminated from her job with the Colorado Judicial Department in Arapahoe County failed to show that she was retaliated against, faced a hostile work environment or experienced discriminatory treatment based on her race, a federal judge ruled.

Shontella Young worked for the probation department of the 18th Judicial District for just under a year, until her supervisor decided she failed to meet the performance benchmarks required to avoid termination. Although information in the lawsuit corroborated that Young excelled at parts of her job and the probation office suffered from a “negative work environment,” U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews noted such facts fell short of illegal race-based behavior toward Young specifically.

“Plaintiff complains generally about working in a ‘hostile environment,’ ‘ill treatment’ she has received, and ‘ongoing personality conflict and tension.’ But vague references to discrimination and harassment without any indication they are motivated by race do not constitute protected activity sufficient to support a retaliation claim,” Crews wrote in a June 15 order.

Young, who represented herself in court, was a support services assistant for the Judicial Department between April 22, 2019 and March 19, 2020. In order to complete her probationary period successfully, she had to achieve a score of at least 2.76 on her first annual review. Her supervisor, Kimberly Moore, ultimately assigned Young ratings that averaged to 2.75.

Moore’s evaluation of Young noted she was “very engaging and empathetic in her conversations with the clients and customers.” Young also takes “very good notes and asks a lot of questions.”

However, Moore’s evaluation described overall frustration with Young’s proclivity to “dictate orders,” bypass her supervisor to seek more favorable answers elsewhere and create a “negative atmosphere.”

“This immediate supervisor has done everything possible to support Shontella,” Moore wrote. “Shontella displays a great disrespect towards those who have tried to support her and prefers doing things her way.”

Young’s termination letter reflected those concerns from Moore, as well as other problems involving unauthorized use of flexible scheduling and Young inappropriately asking another employee to sign her in before entering the office.

In light of those deficiencies, Young has “not set forth any evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could otherwise infer discrimination on behalf of the decision-makers,” the Colorado Attorney General’s Office wrote in defending the probation office’s decision to terminate Young.

In response, Young alleged several instances of disparate treatment. She claimed she was trained differently than another new employee in a way that left her at a disadvantage. Her trainer was reportedly “cold,” “catty” and “unprofessional.”

Young had also submitted an internal complaint describing a hostile work environment and inadequate support from supervisors, which made its way to the Office of the State Court Administrator and its Human Resources Division.

In her findings, issued seven months into Young’s employment, Senior Human Resources Analyst Tracey Sogi confirmed Young “has received training in a different manner” that possibly affected Young’s ability to learn her job duties. Moreover, Sogi agreed there was a “negative work environment” in the office, based on interviews with multiple workers.

“The descriptions overall were unanimously negative, and not one individual described the work environment as positive in any way,” she wrote. “It was evident during the interviews that staff are very upset about the work environment, as many individuals were brought to tears when talking about the workplace.”

Crews, in analyzing Young’s legal claims, considered whether Young’s training had differed from her coworkers on account of her race, and whether such disparate treatment amounted to discrimination. Although the federal appeals court for Colorado has not ruled on whether the denial of training can be a basis for an employment discrimination claim, Crews, nonetheless, found Young’s allegations did not show race-based bias.

“Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence similarly-situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably than her when it comes to the training she received,” he wrote.

As for Young’s alleged harassment, the magistrate judge did not believe Young suffered from pervasive and severe conduct on account of her race. Both Moore, who was Young’s supervisor, and the “cold” trainer were Black women like Young, Crews noted.

Finally, Crews decided Young had not experienced race-based retaliation because her internal complaint to the Judicial Department had not referred to unlawful discrimination in the first place. Although Young had contacted the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission prior to her termination, neither Moore nor the 18th Judicial District’s chief probation officer knew about it at the time they decided to fire her.

Crews ruled in favor of the Judicial Department and dismissed the lawsuit.

The case is Young v. Colorado Judicial Department et al.