Mariah Howard, a former IT project manager for the City of Cleveland, says her tenure at City Hall went from promising to hostile in just a few months, ending with a pink slip that she claims was payback for speaking up.
In a new lawsuit filed this week in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Howard alleges she was hit with racist and sexist slurs on the job, then fired after she filed a formal internal complaint. According to the filing, she started with the city in June 2025, submitted that complaint in August 2025, and was terminated roughly a week later. She is asking a judge to reinstate her, award back pay, and wipe negative entries from her personnel file. The complaint describes a pattern of taunts and unequal treatment that Howard says escalated once she raised her concerns with supervisors.
What The Complaint Says Happened Inside City Hall
As reported by Cleveland.com, the lawsuit claims co-workers called Howard “jezebel,” “sapphire” and “little black b****,” and that managers labeled her routine workplace conduct “aggressive” when she did it, even though male employees were not tagged the same way for similar behavior.
The complaint also alleges that a manager deliberately mispronounced her name, that she was shut out of meetings, and that colleagues and supervisors treated her with hostility after she complained. When she was ultimately fired, Howard says she was told she was not the right “cultural fit” for the office, a phrase that is now front and center in her discrimination and retaliation claims.
How Her Lawyer And The City Are Framing It
Howard’s attorney, Taurean Shattuck of Spitz, wrote in the complaint that “these terms carry deeply rooted racist and sexist connotations that have long been used to demean, marginalize, and dehumanize Black women,” according to the reporting.
In a statement quoted by Cleveland.com, city spokesman Tyler Sinclair said the City of Cleveland “is reviewing the lawsuit and will respond accordingly in court.” The city has not yet filed its formal response in the case.
The Legal Backdrop
Federal law bars race-based harassment and retaliation by employers, including state and local governments, and provides remedies such as reinstatement and back pay, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notes.
Courts typically look at discrimination and retaliation suits through a burden-shifting framework that asks whether an employee engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse action, and can point to evidence that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext, legal observers note. If Howard’s case moves forward, the discovery process could pull in emails, personnel records, and witness testimony that will help determine whether a judge or jury ultimately sees discrimination at work.
What Comes Next In Court
The case is still in its early days in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas. The city will have a chance to file a formal answer and likely test the lawsuit with preliminary motions. If the case survives those early challenges, both sides would move into discovery, depositions, and document exchanges.
Employment law resources note that employers often defend contested firings by citing performance problems or vague issues like “fit,” and that plaintiffs must then show that the explanation masks a discriminatory motive under the McDonnell Douglas framework. For more on how courts analyze these kinds of claims, see Justia.
Howard’s suit puts a spotlight on how the city handles internal bias complaints and whether managers’ comments and the paper trail in her personnel file will back up her story. We will be watching upcoming filings for any new details from either side as the case works its way through the Common Pleas docket.
