White Anchor Fired After Snoop Dogg Quote Loses Race Discrimination Suit

A media company’s decision to fire a white anchor after she made a racially insensitive remark on live TV did not amount to race discrimination, the Fifth Circuit held, affirming a ruling in the employer’s favor.

The sticking point: The employee had been warned about similar misconduct less than six months earlier, the court pointed out.

First Incident: Written Warning for Racially Insensitive Remark 

Barbie Bassett worked as a morning news anchor at WLBT, a television news station in Mississippi. The job required her to refrain from any conduct that could reflect negatively on the TV station or its reputation in the community. Bassett also agreed not to do anything that could insult or offend the community in a way that reflected unfavorably on her or the station.

On Oct. 28, 2022, Bassett was on live TV and used a racially insensitive remark to refer to a Black reporter’s grandmother. The station received “numerous viewer complaints” about her use of the term. Several employees also said they were offended by Bassett’s language.

Bassett received a written warning stating that the comment violated WLBT’s harassment policy because the term “is a negative depiction used during slavery to refer to an African American Grandmother,” and “[t]he Comment was insensitive and inappropriate during the newscast.” The warning also stated further violations could result in disciplinary action, including termination.

Second Incident: Snoop Dogg Quote Leads to Termination

On Mar. 8, 2023, Bassett and her co-anchors were engaging in on-air dialogue after a segment about Snoop Dogg, when she used a phrase – “fo shizzle, my …” – attributed to him. When the show went to commercial break, a Black co-anchor said to Bassett: “I can’t believe you just said the N-word on live TV.” Bassett told him that she believed the phrase meant “for real, my friend” or “for real, my brother.”

Following the broadcast, some Black employees told the station manager and the general manager (GM) that the phrase was a variation of the N-word. Bassett’s remark also generated online criticism and complaints from the community and other employees. 

The station manager and the GM met with HR and in-house counsel to discuss the incident and the meaning of the phrase. They determined the remark was derogatory and terminated Bassett’s employment.

Bassett filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC.

After she received a “right to sue” letter, she sued WLBT, alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII. The case reached the Fifth Circuit.

Did Employer Have Legitimate Reason to Fire Her?

Bassett argued that the station failed to state a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment. 

But WLBT insisted that its stated reason for firing Bassett – her use of “racially offensive language on air twice” – was a legitimate reason for termination. 

Bassett argued this wasn’t a valid reason because she believed the employer was wrong about the language being offensive.

The court wasn’t swayed. It’s well established in the Fifth Circuit that firing an employee for making racially inappropriate comments is a sufficient non-discriminatory reason, it explained.

Moreover, even if the station had reached an “incorrect conclusion” regarding the offensiveness of Bassett’s on-air comments, that wasn’t enough to establish “a racial motivation behind an adverse employment action,” the court noted. “Management doesn’t have to make proper decisions, only non-discriminatory ones.” 

Did Manager’s Remark Prove Race Discrimination? 

Next, Bassett argued that even if WLBT stated a legitimate reason for termination, there was still evidence that her race was a motivating factor in the termination decision — and that should prove race discrimination. She leaned on a remark made by the GM, specifically that “there’s some things that [B]lack people can say that [W]hite people can’t say.” 

She also noted that WLBT “accepted [B]lack persons’ opinions of the meaning of [the phrase] over white persons’ opinions.”

First, the court addressed the GM’s remarks, pointing out that Bassett only quoted a portion of what he actually said. The GM concluded by saying the phrase shouldn’t have been said on air by any employee, regardless of their race.

As to Bassett’s assertion that WLBT accepted Black people’s opinions over white people’s opinions on the meaning of the phrase, the court rejected this, as no evidence supported her claim. The record showed that multiple complaints came in from Black and white viewers and employees alike. 

Bassett failed to provide evidence showing WLBT used her race as a motivating factor in her termination, the court concluded. Instead, the “evidence suggests she was fired for using language on air that WLBT concluded – after receiving numerous employee and viewer complaints – was racially offensive,” the court concluded.

The race discrimination claim failed, so the appeals court affirmed the ruling in the employer’s favor. 

HR Takeaways

This case offers a clear blueprint for defending a termination decision.

Write Warnings That Work

The written warning issued after the first incident named the policy violated, explained why the language was offensive, and stated that further violations could result in termination. That specificity is what made the termination defensible six months later. A vague warning leaves room for dispute.

Consult HR and Counsel Before You Act

Before terminating Bassett, management consulted with HR and in-house counsel. That step demonstrates a deliberate, good-faith process – and you’ll want to be able to show that in a race discrimination dispute. Courts will take notice.

Being Wrong Isn’t the Same as Being Discriminatory

The court was clear: An employer doesn’t have to reach the correct conclusion about whether employee conduct was offensive. Instead, it has to show the reason for termination wasn’t discriminatory. Documented, policy-based decision-making is how employers prove that.

Bassett v. Gray Media Group, Inc., No. 25-60278 (5th Cir. 5/22/26).