Why Employment Relationships Matter In Discrimination Cases
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an employment discrimination law. The word employment is doing some serious work in that sentence. If you sue a defendant for Title VII discrimination, you must allege the required employment relationship with that defendant. La’Keya Keo’s problem was brutally simple: she sued the FBI under Title VII but never alleged that she worked for the FBI or even applied to work there.
And that was hardly the only thing happening in her complaint.
Representing herself pro se, which means on her own without an employee’s rights attorney, Keo alleged “police brutality, misconduct, police negligence, race/color discrimination, harassment, retaliation, gender discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, medical negligence, medical malpractice” and more under Title VII. Quite a legal charcuterie board. But her factual allegations boiled down to something very different: Keo claimed she was the victim of cybercrimes and cyberbullying and that the FBI failed to investigate or otherwise act on her reports. No acts relating to employment with the FBI—because Keo never alleged that she worked there or even applied for a job there.
And there certainly was no wrongful termination claim against the FBI: you cannot be wrongfully fired from a job you never alleged you had.
Yet Keo’s lawsuit kept repeating Title VII like it was a magic incantation.
It is not.
In Keo v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 26-1258, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24038 (3d Cir. Aug. 10, 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal and made the employment-law defect wonderfully uncomplicated: a Title VII plaintiff “must allege an employment relationship with the defendant[ ].” Keo alleged neither employee nor applicant status. Her Title VII claims were ultimately dismissed with prejudice.
There is a useful warning here for employees with real workplace discrimination claims: federal litigation is not Mad Libs. Picking the right defendant, the right law, and the right legal theory matters.
Legal Takeaways
- Title VII requires an employment relationship. A plaintiff pursuing Title VII employment discrimination must allege the required employment relationship with the defendant. Keo failed because she alleged neither that she was an FBI employee nor an applicant for FBI employment.
- More claims do not cure a missing legal element. Keo’s Title VII claims were dismissed with prejudice after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that she failed to state a viable Title VII claim and that further amendment would be futile.
Do I Have To Work For A Company To Sue It Under Title VII?
You do not necessarily have to work for a company to bring a Title VII claim against it, but Title VII requires the necessary employment relationship with the defendant. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Title VII plaintiff “must allege an employment relationship with the defendant[ ].” But that rule has some important wrinkles. Figuring out whether that relationship exists is not always as simple as reading the company name on a paycheck.
A job applicant can have Title VII rights without ever working a single day for the employer. Staffing-agency and temporary-worker arrangements can raise questions about whether more than one entity qualifies as an employer. Joint-employer situations can likewise make the legal employment relationship more complicated than the organizational chart suggests. And state employment discrimination laws may define covered employment relationships and liabilities differently. Those additional issues were not before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Keo because Keo had no employment connection to the FBI.
She did not allege that she was an FBI employee or that she applied for a job with the FBI. There was no alleged staffing arrangement or other employment relationship for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to analyze. Her allegations instead concerned cybercrimes, cyberbullying, and the FBI’s alleged failure to act on her reports.
So the Title VII analysis ended almost as soon as it began. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Keo failed to state a viable Title VII claim. And because further amendment would have been futile, her Title VII claims ended with prejudice.
Practical Tip: If you experienced workplace discrimination while applying for a job or working through a staffing agency, temporary agency, or another company at your worksite, tell your employment lawyer or attorney who hired you, paid you, supervised you, controlled your work, and made the challenged decision. Identifying the correct employment relationship can determine whom a Title VII claim should target.
Best Employment Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Does Calling Something Discrimination Make It A Title VII Claim?
No. Calling conduct “discrimination” does not make it a Title VII employment discrimination claim. Abraham Lincoln once asked: “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
Title VII works the same way.
Keo certainly had the vocabulary. Her amended complaint alleged “discrimination, harassment, Racial, Retaliation, Gender, Age, Religion” and more “pursuant to Title VII.” But her actual factual allegations concerned cybercrimes, cyberbullying, and the FBI’s alleged failure to investigate or act on her reports.
Calling those allegations Title VII claims did not make them Title VII claims.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals looked past the labels to the required legal elements. Keo failed to allege that she was an FBI employee or applicant, even though a Title VII plaintiff “must allege an employment relationship with the defendant[ ].”
Legal claims are built from elements, not adjectives.
An employee may sincerely believe an employer discriminated, harassed, or retaliated against them. Sincerity does not supply a missing legal element. Neither does capitalization. Neither does adding another claim. The alleged facts must fit the law.
A good employment lawyer starts with the facts, not the label. Who employed you? What happened? Who made the decision? What facts connect that decision to a protected characteristic or protected conduct? Only then comes the question that matters: What legal claim do these facts actually support?
Keo started with Title VII and tried to fit her allegations inside it. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately concluded that she failed to state a viable Title VII claim.
Calling a tail a leg does not give the dog five legs. Calling something discrimination does not give you a Title VII claim.
Practical Tip: Before filing an employment discrimination claim, give your attorney the facts before giving them your diagnosis of the law. A strong employment lawyer can test those facts against each required element and identify the claims they actually support.
Best Employee Rights Attorney Blogs on Point:
What Can Go Wrong If I Handle My Employment Discrimination Case Myself?
Plenty. Representing yourself in an employment discrimination case means a legal mistake can follow you from the complaint, through amendment, into dismissal, and all the way up on appeal. Keo’s case is a painful demonstration of how a problem that should be identified at the beginning can become much harder to fix at the end.
Keo proceeded pro se. The District Court first dismissed her complaint on sovereign-immunity grounds but gave her an opportunity to amend. She did. The amended complaint was dismissed too, this time without another opportunity to amend.
Strike one. Strike two. So Keo appealed.
But an appeal is not Complaint 3.0.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals observed that Keo’s appellate arguments “mostly reiterate[d] her complaint’s allegations” and that she did not appear to “challenge meaningfully” the District Court’s determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
That is a brutal sentence. An appeal requires attacking why the ruling below was legally wrong. Repeating the allegations that brought you to court may simply give the appellate judges another opportunity to read the same allegations.
Then Keo’s trip upstairs actually made part of the result worse.
The District Court had dismissed her claims without prejudice. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the judgment so Keo’s Title VII claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that she failed to state a viable Title VII claim and another amendment would be futile.
That is one brutal appellate souvenir: Keo appealed a dismissal without prejudice and came home with her Title VII claims dismissed with prejudice.
None of this means an attorney could have invented the employment relationship Keo never alleged. Lawyers cannot manufacture facts. The value of a good employment lawyer is recognizing what the facts actually support before those facts are committed to a complaint—and knowing which defendants, claims, arguments, and evidence belong there.
That is exactly why employees call Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm. Spitz is one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated to employee rights, with the resources and trial experience to evaluate Title VII, workplace discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims before avoidable mistakes become permanent ones. Our employment lawyers know the difference between a claim that needs better evidence, a pleading problem that can be fixed, and facts that simply do not support the legal theory an employee has in mind.
The initial consultation is free, and our no-fee guarantee means you do not pay attorney fees unless we obtain a recovery for you. If you believe your employer discriminated against you, retaliated against you, or wrongfully fired you, call Spitz before trying to navigate the federal courthouse alone.
Federal court is an expensive place to discover that your legal theory never fit your facts.
Practical Tip: Talk to an experienced employment attorney before filing a discrimination lawsuit—and, if your case has already been dismissed, before appealing. Early legal review can identify the proper defendant and viable claims; appellate review can determine whether the judge actually made a reversible legal error rather than simply giving the same allegations another trip through the courthouse.
Best Title VII Law Firm Blogs on Point:
Frequently Asked Questions About Title VII And Employment Discrimination
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Other federal and state employment laws may protect employees from additional forms of workplace discrimination.
Can A Staffing Agency And The Company Where I Work Both Be My Employer?
Potentially. Some staffing and joint-employer arrangements can involve more than one employer for employment law purposes. Determining which company qualifies as an employer depends on the particular employment relationship and cannot necessarily be answered by looking only at which company issues the employee’s paycheck.
What Does Pro Se Mean In A Lawsuit?
Pro se means representing yourself in a lawsuit without an attorney. A pro se plaintiff handles the case without a lawyer and remains responsible for presenting legally viable claims and arguments.
Will A Court Help Me If I File A Wrongful Termination Claim On My Own?
A court may construe a pro se employee’s filings liberally, but the judge does not become the employee’s employment lawyer. An employee pursuing a wrongful termination or employment discrimination claim without an attorney remains responsible for alleging facts that support a legally viable claim and for addressing the legal issues that arise during the case.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employee rights and workplace discrimination blog provides general information about Title VII, employment law, employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and employees who believe they were wrongfully fired. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as advice about any specific employee, employer, lawsuit, or workplace dispute. Employment law rights depend on the particular facts and applicable law. Consult a qualified employment lawyer or attorney for advice about your individual circumstances. No result, recovery, settlement, or outcome is promised or guaranteed, and past results do not guarantee future results. Reading this blog or contacting Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm does not create an attorney-client relationship unless one is expressly established. This blog is a legal advertisement.