Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Labor
Showing of "Hostile Work Place" Requires "Severe & Pervasive" Treatment
Sufficient to Change a Term or Condition of Employment
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Gusby v. ConAgra Poultry Co., No. 07-CV-1090, 2008 WL 4446611 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 30, 2008), the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas held that a plaintiff had failed to prove disparate treatment and discrimination severe and pervasive enough to have affected a term or condition of his employment, and therefore granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Background
Plaintiff, an African-American and longtime employee of a ConAgra poultry processing plant, and seven other employees filed a class action suit against ConAgra and Pilgrim's Pride, which purchased ConAgra Poultry in 2003, alleging discrimination in the form of disparate treatment, failure to promote, and a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993. Id. at *3. The court denied class certification, but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed individually, and the defendants moved for summary judgment. Id. at *3-4. During his employment of over 25 years at the plant, plaintiff claimed to have had one racial slur directed towards him, and alleged that his supervisors "bogged him down" with work and treated everyone in his department negatively. Id. at *2. He also complained of racial graffiti on the bathroom walls. Id. at *3. He never complained to management or his union of any racial discrimination during his tenure at the plant. Id.
Arguments
Plaintiff argued that he was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993. Id. at *3.
Defendants, in support of their summary judgment motion, argued that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment because he could not show that he was subjected to unwelcome race-based harassment, that the alleged harassment was because of his membership in the protected group and that it affected a term, condition or privilege of his employment. Id. at *5.
Analysis and Holdings
"[T] o establish a racially hostile work environment claim, an employee must show that: 1) he was a member of a protected group; 2) he was subjected to unwelcome race-based harassment; 3) the harassment was because of his membership in the protected group; and 4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of his employment." Id. at *6 (citing Elmahdi v. Marriott Hotel Serv., Inc., 339 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 2003)). To have affected a term or condition of his employment, the harassment must be severe and pervasive. Id. The court stated that one racial slur in over a 25 year period was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, and found no evidence that his supervisor's negative attitude was motivated by race because he acted negatively toward all the maintenance employees in his department, Caucasian and African-American. Id. The court further found that the racial graffiti in the bathrooms was not sufficiently severe and pervasive enough to affect the terms of the plaintiff's employment, because none of the graffiti was directed towards him personally, and he admitted that the defendants painted over the graffiti several times and that it had not affected his ability to do his job. Id. at *7. Regarding plaintiff's claim that his supervisor "bogged him down on jobs," the court stated that "[w]hile these alleged acts may have resulted in a frustrating work situation for [plaintiff], they did not create a work environment permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule or insult." Id. at *8. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Id.
The case was decided on September 30, 2008.