Allegations of discrimination and retaliation in a state agency have been brought to federal court, as a former employee claims she was subjected to unfair treatment based on her race and color, denied reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and ultimately forced to resign due to intolerable working conditions. The complaint was filed by Cecile Shell in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on April 13, 2026, naming the Arizona Department of Economic Security as defendant.
According to the filing, Shell began her employment with the department as an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) after being contacted about an opportunity through Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Career Center in March 2021. The department indicated that no prior experience or license was required for the position at that time. Shell accepted a temporary role as a Hearing Officer 3 within the Office of Inspector General starting March 22, 2021.
Shell alleges that although she started alongside five other new hires under similar terms—three white women, one white man, and one brown-skinned Muslim man—she faced disparate treatment regarding opportunities for permanent employment. She claims that two fair-skinned white female colleagues received full-time permanent positions before her despite applying at the same time for identical roles. The complaint states: “DEFENDANT subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment actions when two fair-skinned white females received full-time permanency employment before PLAINTIFF after each applied by deadline for full-time permanency in same position.”
The lawsuit outlines Shell’s progression from temporary to permanent status only after multiple applications and interviews. During this period, she describes an escalating workload without adequate support or resources. Shell recounts that her caseload increased significantly during mid-2021 due to pandemic-related unemployment cases. Despite raising concerns about excessive hearings—sometimes up to 26 per day—and incomplete case files with supervisors Nicole Robinson (Chief Judge) and Marie Rios-Martinez (Supervisor), Shell asserts her complaints were dismissed or met with hostility.
The complaint further details incidents where Shell says she experienced retaliation after reporting workplace issues to human resources. For example, following reports about supervisor conduct in November 2021, Shell was allegedly required to submit daily work logs without clear justification and continued receiving assignments inconsistent with previously agreed accommodations.
Shell also sought reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to medical conditions including hypertension and ADHD. She requested limits on hearing schedules but states these requests were denied by ADA Coordinator Nina Ferrer in May 2022: “Upon review of your request…we have determined that your request for review of your workload…is more appropriately addressed with your management team…Therefore, your request for reasonable accommodation under the ADA is denied at this time.”
The situation reportedly worsened when Shell’s telework agreement was terminated following personal safety concerns related to vandalism at her residence. She was then placed on a Performance Improvement Plan requiring daily in-person attendance despite lacking stable housing or transportation—a condition she describes as contributing to anxiety attacks witnessed by coworkers.
After additional disputes over work assignments and office incidents involving other staff members during June 2022—including being sent home early by Robinson and subsequently placed on administrative leave—Shell resigned effective July 19, 2022.
In her causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes, Shell alleges discrimination based on race and color; retaliation for protected activity such as opposing unlawful practices; failure to provide reasonable accommodation; creation of a hostile work environment; and constructive discharge under both federal law and Arizona Revised Statutes §23-1502.
Shell seeks several remedies from the court: declaratory judgment that her rights were violated; a permanent injunction against future discriminatory or retaliatory acts by the department; damages for emotional distress; back pay, front pay, lost benefits; compensatory and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a Notice of Right to Sue on January 12, 2026 (Charge No: 540-2022-02989), stating it would not proceed further but making no determination regarding merit or compliance by either party. Attorneys’ names are not listed in the provided document. The case is identified as Case No: CV26-02550-PHX-JJT.
Source: 226cv02550_Shell_v_Arizona_Department_of_Economic_Security_Complaint_District_Arizona.pdf
