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