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