Former events server sues hospitality company Pinstripes for race discrimination and retaliation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
0Comments

Allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation have been brought forward by a former employee against a hospitality company specializing in entertainment services. The complaint was filed by Travis Ervin on March 5, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against New Social Oakbrook, LLC, which operates under the name Pinstripes.

According to court documents, Ervin worked as an Events Server for the defendant from approximately November 1, 2025 until his termination on or about January 22, 2026. The complaint states that Ervin is African American/Mixed Race and claims he faced discriminatory treatment based on his race throughout his employment. He alleges that from the beginning of his tenure at Pinstripes, he was subjected to different terms and conditions than employees outside his protected class and experienced a hostile work environment.

The filing describes repeated use of offensive racial slurs by coworkers in Ervin’s presence. Specifically, it states that Hispanic servers regularly used discriminatory language including the slur “nigger,” which caused distress to Ervin. Additionally, two food runners with autism were allegedly referred to with derogatory terms by other employees. The complaint asserts that this conduct occurred consistently from November 2025 onward.

Ervin reports that he opposed this behavior directly with coworkers and raised concerns multiple times with his serving manager Peter Mitchell. On December 2, 2025, Ervin formally reported both the racial slurs and derogatory comments about autistic coworkers to Mitchell. Despite these reports—described as protected activity under federal law—the complaint alleges no corrective action was taken by management.

The document outlines that Ervin continued to report these issues verbally throughout his employment but saw no resolution or meaningful response from management. He expressed emotional distress due to the ongoing environment and asked for contact information for Human Resources as well as a possible transfer to another location; both requests were allegedly met with claims of ignorance or inability to assist from Mitchell.

After raising concerns again on January 10, 2026, Ervin was removed from the work schedule starting January 11 without explanation or further scheduling. Over subsequent weeks he repeatedly contacted Mitchell seeking clarification about his job status but received no clear response until January 22. At that time Mitchell responded via text message claiming that Ervin had resigned—a claim contradicted by prior communications according to the complaint—and also cited alleged uniform violations as reasons for not being scheduled.

The lawsuit contends that these explanations were pretextual and that Ervin never resigned nor was warned about any dress code violations during his employment. Instead, it asserts he was effectively terminated because of his race and in retaliation for reporting discrimination.

Ervin’s legal claims are brought under several statutes: Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting race-based contract discrimination), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (covering workplace discrimination and harassment), and Illinois common law regarding retaliatory discharge. The complaint argues that Pinstripes’ actions constituted illegal intentional race discrimination as well as unlawful retaliation for protected activity such as reporting discriminatory conduct affecting both himself and others with disabilities.

In addition to outlining alleged violations of federal civil rights laws—including failure to investigate complaints or prevent further harassment—the suit also invokes Illinois public policy favoring non-discrimination in workplaces.

As relief from the court, Ervin seeks back pay; payment of interest on back pay; front pay; compensation for loss of benefits; compensatory and punitive damages; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; pre-judgment interest if applicable; and any other relief deemed just by the court. A jury trial has been demanded.

The attorneys representing Travis Ervin are Yasmeen Elagha and Mohammed O. Badwan of Atlas Law Center Ltd., located in Lombard, Illinois. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-02500.

Source: 1226cv02500_Travis_Ervin_v_New_Social_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf



Related

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Former special education teacher sues ABLE Academy for disability discrimination and retaliation

A former employee of ABLE Academy has filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation after her termination.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

Former detainee Leroy Bracey accuses Kane County Jail of denying medical care

A Chicago resident has filed a lawsuit against Kane County, Illinois and unnamed jail medical staff, alleging denial of necessary medical treatment during his detention.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Former employee accuses Entegris, Inc. of race discrimination and retaliation in federal lawsuit

A former operations associate has filed a federal complaint against Entegris, Inc., alleging race-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Trending

The Weekly Newsletter

Sign-up for the Weekly Newsletter from Illinois Courts Daily.