“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Fourth Circuit judge Allison Rushing wrote a 2-1 opinion, joined by Trump judge Julius Richardson, that affirmed the dismissal of a black woman’s job discrimination claim against the US Army. Judge Roger Gregory, who was nominated by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush, strongly dissented in the August 2025 decision in Seabrook v Driscoll.
What happened in this case?
Dorothy Seabrook, a black woman, worked as a program manager at the US Army Reserve Command in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. She sought information on how to initiate disciplinary action against a white male employee who had conduct and performance issues. She was instructed to continue documenting the problems, but not to issue a poor performance rating without counseling the employee or issuing a performance review plan. In the end the Army declined to take disciplinary action. She also served as a supporting witness for a supervisor, a Hispanic woman, who had brought a discrimination complaint against the Army.
Another management official who knew of this activity, a white male, issued a 14-day suspension notice to Seabrook. After mediation efforts failed, Seabrook filed a discrimination complaint, naming the management official as an offending party. The same officials who had told Seabrook not to issue a poor performance rating to a white male employee without prior counseling or the issuance of a performance review plan told the white male manager that it was acceptable to issue a poor review to Seabrook without going through those steps. A month after she filed her complaint, the manager in fact issued a poor review to Seabrook.
Acting on her own without a lawyer, Seabrook filed a discrimination complaint in federal court. With no discovery, the judge dismissed the case as a matter of law. Seabrook appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
How did Trump judges Rushing and Richardson rule and why is the result harmful?
Trump judges Rushing and Richardson issued a 2-1 ruling that affirmed the decision below and the dismissal of Seabrook’s discrimination case. The majority maintained that the complaint was “speculative” and did not state sufficient facts to allow her to proceed with her discrimination case.
Judge Gregory strongly dissented. He explained that she had “clearly” raised a plausible claim of retaliation by contending that she had received a poor performance review one month after filing an EEO complaint and for disparate treatment based on the “stark differences” in how she and a comparable white employee were assessed during the performance review process. The majority’s decision to nevertheless dismiss her complaint, he went on, reflects an “astonishing departure” from past precedent in discrimination cases. Based on past precedent and the record in Seabrook’s case, he concluded, the ruling’s impact on future discrimination cases raising disparate impact and retaliation claims “will be devastating.”
The holding by Trump judges Rushing and Richardson clearly will eliminate Dorothy Seabrook’s ability to get justice under federal law for the discrimination she has suffered. It will also have a “devastating” impact on others who suffer discrimination at work, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.