Let’s clear something up right away: yelling “race discrimination” after getting fired does not magically turn bad workplace behavior into a wrongful termination case.
Kady-Ann Cox was a police officer for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. In 2019, she responded to a report of a disturbance in public. She physically secured the person involved. The person hit her back. As the other officers quickly intervened and separated them, the subject spit on Cox. At that point, the situation should have been over. Cox then approached the person again and struck her anyway. That choice mattered. It was a bad choice.
SEPTA opened an Internal Affairs investigation. Cox was interviewed three times. The investigation concluded that she used excessive force and that she was not truthful during the investigation. Lying during an internal affairs investigation was a very bad choice.
A Police Board of Inquiry agreed, finding that Cox’s statements were “clearly inconsistent with the facts discovered during the investigation” and that she “lied” during her Internal Affairs interviews. Based on that recommendation, Thomas Nestel terminated her employment.
Cox, who is African American, sued, alleging race discrimination, employment discrimination, and civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed she was wrongfully fired. The district court rejected those claims. On appeal, in Cox v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 25-1100, 2026 WL 195004 (3d Cir. Jan. 26, 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her discrimination and wrongful termination claims.
This case is uncomfortable. It should be. And it explains why some discrimination lawsuits collapse before they ever get close to trial.
Can I Win A Race Discrimination Case Just By Showing Racial Motive?
Most employees think an employment discrimination case starts with motive. It doesn’t. Under employment law, courts start with a basic checklist called Step One of the McDonnell Douglas test. And if an employee fails here, the case is over before it really begins.
Step One has three requirements, and the employee must meet all three:
First, the employee must be in a protected class.
Second, the employee must have suffered an adverse employment action, like being fired.
Third, the employee must have been qualified for the job at the time of termination.
If the employee meets these criteria, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate reason besides race for the termination. The employee can the prove that the employer’s reason is pretext (a legal term for non-legitimate).
In Cox, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made clear that Cox satisfied the first two elements of her initial burden—race and adverse action. She is African American. She was fired. No one disputed either point.
The case collapsed at the third element.
The Third Circuit Court held that Cox could not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because she was not qualified for the job when she was terminated. The Court held that an employee’s “subjective qualifications” are irrelevant when the employee fails to meet a “minimum requirement needed to hold [the] position.”
This is where many wrongfully fired employees get blindsided. Courts do not bend this rule out of sympathy. If an employee cannot show they were qualified, a court will never asks whether the employer acted with racial bias. It never reaches intent. It never analyzes pretext or retaliation. It stops.
That is not anti-employee. That is how employment law is built.
Best Race Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Can You Be Fired for Lying During an Internal Affairs Investigation?
Yes. And this is where qualification disappeared entirely.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Internal Affairs concluded Cox “lied” and made statements that were “clearly inconsistent with the facts discovered during the investigation.” A Police Board of Inquiry upheld those findings. The court treated those conclusions as decisive.
Here is the step many employees never hear explained.
The court held that being able to testify in court is a core responsibility of being a SEPTA police officer. Chief Nestel testified that if an officer cannot testify, “any arrests that [the officer] would make would be lost.” The Third Circuit Court of Appeals accepted that testimony.
Arrests do not stand on their own. They survive only if the arresting officer can explain, under oath, what happened and why the arrest was lawful. Once an employee is found untruthful, prosecutors must disclose that fact. Defense attorneys exploit it. Cases get dismissed. Prosecutors stop calling that officer.
That is what “lost arrests” means.
Once Cox was placed on the District Attorney’s misconduct list and barred from testifying, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that she could no longer perform a core function of her job. At that point, she was not just disciplined. She was unqualified.
Lying is bad. Lying and getting caught is worse. And lying during an Internal Affairs investigation can make it legally impossible to continue employment.
Best Wrongful Termination Attorney Blogs on Point:
Can an Employer Fire an Employee for Excessive Force at Work?
Let’s deal with the human reaction first. If someone punches you and spits on you, is it understandable to feel provoked? Of course it is. Most employees would struggle to stay calm in that moment.
But employment law does not ask what feels understandable. It asks what the job required.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals focused on undisputed facts. Cox struck a member of the public after other officers had already intervened and created physical separation. The Court treated that conduct as excessive force under SEPTA policy, not as a heat-of-the-moment reaction the employer had to excuse.
That distinction matters because qualification is not about emotions. It is about job standards. For a police officer, the job requires restraint, control, and de-escalation once a situation is contained. Employment law allows an employer to terminate an employee who fails to meet those standards.
This is where many wrongful termination myths fall apart. The legal standard is not “what would most people have done?” It is “what did this job require?” When the answer is restraint, and restraint fails, the employer is allowed to act.
This means that the employer had a legitimate reason for the termination that the employee could not refute.
That does not mean discrimination never happens. It means misconduct does not become discrimination just because the employee belongs to a protected class.
Best Employee’s Rights Law Firm Blogs on Point:
Why Hiring Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm Matters
Cases like this show why how a law firm gets paid really matters.
When an employee is fired, money is often tight. The last thing a wrongfully fired employee needs is an attorney demanding a big retainer while quietly knowing the case is weak. That happens more often than people realize.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm offers a free initial consultation so employees can get honest answers without risking money they need to survive. If a case is strong, Spitz takes it on a contingency fee, meaning the firm only gets paid if the employee wins.
That structure forces honesty. Spitz does not stretch the odds of success just to collect fees. The firm does not take retainers from employees when employment law is clearly stacked against them. And it does not keep billing clients long after it knows a claim is unlikely to succeed.
As a large, successful firm focused exclusively on employment law, Spitz does not need to mislead recently fired employees to stay busy. In addition to the importance of having integrity, Spitz has enough strong cases to tell people the truthfully that pursuing a claim may not make sense.
Sometimes the best legal advice is knowing when not to spend money chasing a case. Spitz gives that advice.
Legal Disclaimer
This blog provides general information about employment law, employee rights, employer obligations, discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and being wrongfully fired. It is not legal advice. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. No promises or guarantees are being made regarding the outcome of any legal matter.
Every employee’s situation is different. Employment law cases depend on specific facts, timing, and evidence. You should consult with a qualified employment lawyer or attorney for advice tailored to your circumstances. An employer’s conduct, an employee’s actions, and internal investigations can all affect legal rights.
This blog is a legal advertisement. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.