Skip to main content

Hostile Work Environment Claim Involving a Noose in the Workplace Proceeds to a Jury


Washington v. Recology San Francisco - United States District Court, Northern District of California


Facts:  Since 2013, Daryle Washington ("Washington"), an African American, worked for Recology San Francisco ("Recology") as a material handler.  In December 2013, Washington saw a fellow worker, Jon Peralta ("Peralta"), remove a noose from a sorting line.  Peralta, who was Caucasian, placed the noose on the backpack of another co-worker, who was also African American.  Washington saw Peralta do this and noted that Peralta tighten the noose and walk away laughing.  Washington reported the conduct to his supervisor.  Peralta was subsequently suspended without pay, pending an investigation.  After an investigation, Peralta was suspended for five days without pay.

Peralta returned to work and was placed alongside Washington.  Washington stated he felt uncomfortable and was denied a request to be placed away from Peralta.  In January 2014, Washington learned that Peralta had tossed a copy of Jet between two workers at Recology.  However, Washington did not personally witness it happen.  

In November 2014, Washington filed a claim against Recology and alleged racial harassment under Title VII and California state law and failure to prevent the racial harassment. 

Holding:  The District Court noted that to succeed on a hostile work environment claim, "the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering all the circumstances."  The facts in this case demonstrated three instances of unwelcome conduct:  1) the noose incident; 2) Washington being placed to work alongside Peralta; and 3) Washington learning of the Jet magazine incident.

In this case, the Court noted that the severity of the hostility inherent in a display of a noose cannot be overstated.  Other circuits had previously held that simply placing a noose above a work station along with a racially charged disciplinary event constituted sufficiently severe conduct that should be placed before a jury to consider.  Even though Peralta did not display the noose in a manner directed specifically at Washington, the Court held that Washington never the less saw the events unfold.  Coupled with the fact that Peralta resumed "racially insensitive conduct" immediately after his suspension was over led the Court to hold that this conduct could have unreasonably interfered with Washington's work performance. 

Judgment:  The District Court denied Recology's motion for summary judgment and held that the noose incident of a Caucasian worker, coupled with a few other racially charged incidents, was sufficient to allow Washington's hostile work environment claim to proceed to a jury.

The Takeaway:  I wanted to highlight this case in particular because the facts are very similar to a hostile work environment claim I worked on in Louisiana a few years ago that involved a noose in the workplace.

With that being said, I have some trouble following the Court's reasoning in this instance.  From the facts, it is undisputed that Washington saw Peralta place a noose on a co-worker's backpack and tighten it.  It does make sense that Washington did not want to work with Peralta after seeing this happen.  However, the undisputed facts also established that while Washington was upset about the Jet magazine incident, he was not present when it happened.  Apparently the Court found that this was sufficient to allow the claim to proceed to a jury.  That much I agree with...there was likely enough evidence here to defeat a summary judgment motion.  However, I question whether a jury would find these incidents alone were enough to amount to a valid hostile work environment claim.  

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Alsup

Date:  December 22, 2015

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/WashingtonRecology122215.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more