Feeling Iced Out at Work? It Could Be Grounds for a Legal Claim

Workplace discrimination and retaliation aren’t always about overt actions like termination or demotion. Sometimes, they manifest in more subtle but equally harmful ways—such as being excluded, ignored, or gradually stripped of responsibilities. If you’ve ever felt like you were being pushed to the sidelines at work, you’re not alone, and you may have legal recourse.

A recent court ruling in Schoenadel v. YouGov America Inc. highlights how workplace exclusion and diminishing responsibilities can potentially support discrimination and retaliation claims. The court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case on summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial based on allegations that the plaintiff was marginalized and forced to resign after raising concerns about bias.

The plaintiff in Schoenadel alleged that after being passed over for a promotion to CEO of the Americas—a role that was instead given to a male colleague—her position as Chief Customer Officer (CCO) became increasingly diminished. Key responsibilities she had been promised were reassigned to men, her leadership meetings were canceled, and she was deliberately excluded from important company discussions. Even though she remained in her executive role, she found herself systematically shut out. For example, after making a complaint in December 2021, she noticed that weekly meetings she had previously attended with other senior leaders were abruptly canceled or held without her. She was excluded from leadership workstream meetings and broader strategy discussions, despite those meetings being directly relevant to her role. She also testified that after her complaint stakeholders largely stopped communicating with her altogether, further contributing to her isolation.

On multiple occasions, she expressed concerns about these changes, including in emails to senior leadership, stating that her responsibilities were being taken away, making her feel irrelevant and possibly the target of bias. The court found that these actions, when taken together, could be viewed by a jury as workplace retaliation and gender discrimination. The Court explained:

“Actions that when “considered individually[ ] might not amount to much” can constitute an adverse employment action if, “[t]aken together” they “paint a mosaic of retaliation.” Vega, 801 F.3d at 92. After Schoenadel filed her grievance, she says that she was “further isolated and excluded,” “not invited to leadership meetings that should have included [her],” [s]enior leaders would not email or call [her], other than an occasional communication from Saez,” and “[w]hen [Schoenadel] requested information, [she] was ignored.” Dkt. 94 ¶ 193. Although YouGov cites to cases holding that exclusion from meetings doesn’t constitute an adverse action, see Dkt. 76 at 29–30, a reasonable juror might find that YouGov’s actions, collectively, “could … dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Vega, 801 F.3d at 90 (quoting Burlington, 548 U.S. at 57). After all, “[t]he real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed.” Burlington, 548 U.S. at 69 (quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1998)). “A supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial, … [b]ut to retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.”

The court’s ruling emphasized that workplace exclusion, loss of responsibilities, and lack of communication from leadership can contribute to an adverse employment action under discrimination law. In the past, some courts narrowly defined adverse employment actions as only including terminations or demotions. However, applying recent Supreme Court precedent in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), the court found that an employee does not need to suffer a "significant" change in employment but only needs to demonstrate that an employer’s actions made working conditions worse. In Schoenadel’s case, being frozen out of critical conversations and stripped of authority while her male counterparts took over her work provided sufficient grounds for a jury to decide whether discrimination played a role.

The decision also illustrated the concept of "constructive discharge." This legal principle applies when an employer creates such an intolerable work environment that an employee has no choice but to resign. In Schoenadel, the plaintiff alleged that after months of being excluded and denied compensation she had previously received, she felt forced to leave YouGov in March 2022. The court ruled that a reasonable jury could find that her working conditions were deliberately made so difficult that resignation was the only viable option.

The case underscores that discrimination claims are not solely about blatant acts like firing or demotion. Instead, discrimination can take the form of being systematically excluded from leadership, denied promised responsibilities, and undermined in a way that makes continued employment untenable. If you suspect that you are experiencing similar treatment at work—whether through exclusion from meetings, loss of responsibilities, or other forms of workplace isolation—it may be a sign of unlawful discrimination or retaliation. The Schoenadel ruling is a powerful reminder that being sidelined at work isn’t just frustrating—it may be illegal. If you suspect your employer is pushing you out due to discrimination or retaliation, seek a consultation with an employment attorney right away to explore your rights and options under federal, state, and local law.