Skip to main content

A Single Racial Epithet By a Supervisor Towards an Employee Could Result in a Valid Hostile Work Environment Claim


Daniel v. T&M Protection Resources LLC - Second Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Otis Daniel ("Daniel") filed a hostile work environment claim and alleged a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against his employer, T&M Protection Resources, LLC ("T&M").  Daniel claimed his supervisor discriminated against him because of his race, sex, and national origin.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of T&M and Daniel appealed.

Holding:  (Note, this case analysis only analyzes the hostile work environment portion of Daniel's appeal).  The Court of Appeals pointed out that in order for a plaintiff to proceed on a hostile work environment claim, it must be shown:  1) that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of that employee's work environment and 2) that a specific basis exists for imputing the conduct that created the hostile work environment to the employer.  Although isolated incidents usually will not suffice to establish a hostile work environment, the Second Circuit has found that a single episode of harassment can establish a hostile work environment so long as the incident is sufficiently severe.

The Court noted that the District Court had given credence to a prior Second Circuit case to hold that "[f]or racist comments, slurs, and jokes to constitute a hostile work environment, there must be more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity, meaning that[,] instead of sporadic racial slurs, there must be a steady barrage of opprobrious racial comments."  However, the Court of Appeals suggested that particular case did not foreclose the possibility that the one time use of a severe racial slur could, by itself, support a hostile work environment claim when evaluated with the cumulative reality of the work environment.  As the Court had previously held, "perhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employer and create an abusive working environment than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet...by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates."  

In the present case, Daniel's supervisor had apparently directed a single racial slur towards Daniel.  Consequently, although the Court did not address whether the one time use of a racial epithet by a supervisor to a subordinate can, by itself, support a claim for a hostile work environment, it was held that the District Court improperly applied prior precedent when it granted summary judgment in favor of T&M.  As a result, the Court held that based upon prior precedent, Daniels' hostile work environment claim should be allowed to proceed.

Judgment:  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the granting of summary judgment in favor of T&M on Daniel's hostile work environment claim on the grounds that the District Court improperly applied prior precedent to hold that a single, isolated racial epithet could not create a hostile work environment.

The Takeaway:  This case reminds me of when I worked on previously in Louisiana.  That case dealt with a similar hostile work environment claim that involved a racial epithet (along with other hostile conduct directed towards that particular employee by a supervisor).

Although this is a Summary Order from the Court (and a rather short discussion that does not directly decide the matter), I think it is still relevant to review.  Note how the Court of Appeals pointed out the District Court improperly construed prior caselaw on the matter (in particular that the prior case did not directly foreclose on the notion that a single racial slur could result in a hostile work environment).  While the Court did not directly decide  whether a hostile work environment existed in this instance, the Court took care to point out that when properly applying Second Circuit caselaw, it is possible for a plaintiff to prevail on a hostile work environment claim based upon these facts.  Readers would be wise to consult the caselaw in their particular state to see what is required for a plaintiff to prevail (or at the very least defeat a motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment) when the alleged unlawful conduct could be as little as a single racial epithet, such as what allegedly occurred in this case.

Majority Opinion Judge:  None Listed

Date:  April 25, 2017

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/DanielT&M042517.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