Skip to main content

Even A Few Isolated Comments Can Create a Hostile Work Environment Claim


Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Reya Boyer-Liberto ("Liberto") was an African American employee at the Clarion Resort Fontainebleau Hotel in Ocean City, Maryland.  At the hotel, Liberto worked as a cocktail waitress.  On two occasions within a 24 hour period, Liberto was called a "porch monkey" and threatened with the loss of her job by a white restaurant manager.  The manager also threatened to "get" Liberto and "make her sorry".  After Liberto subsequently reported to higher ups at the hotel about the manager's conduct and the racial harassment, Liberto was fired.

Liberto brought a hostile work environment and retaliation claim against Fontainebleau on the basis of violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of Fontainebleau.

Holding:  In its decision to reverse the district court's ruling, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that in order to prevail upon a hostile work environment claim, a claimant must show "the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive work environment."  After reviewing the elements of a hostile work environment claim that a claimant must establish in order to prevail, the Court held that even though the complained of conduct in this case were isolated incidents, these racial slurs could establish a hostile work environment as the conduct was "extremely serious."

Judgment:  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Fontainebleau and held that two aggressive racial slurs made within a 24 hour period may create a hostile work environment claim. 

The Takeaway:  This was somewhat of a surprising outcome from the Court.  Granted, any racial comment is offensive, but just because there is a racial slur or two does not necessarily mean that a hostile work environment exists.  However, in this case, the Court focused on the severity of the comments, along with the conduct of the manager, and found that sufficient evidence existed to allow the claimant to proceed on her hostile work environment claim.  

Let this case be a lesson to employers:  even isolated incidents can be evidence of a hostile work environment, especially when a Court examines how extreme the conduct of the employer was.  In this case, for instance, such inflammatory comments as "porch monkey" were viewed as an extreme epithet for a hostile work environment claim to proceed.  Be aware of how your managers/supervisors are talking to employees...a few inflammatory comments could spell trouble!

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge King

Date:  May 7, 2015

Opinionhttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1700313.html

Comments

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,...

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations