Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Racial Discrimination Claim against Poultry Processing Plant Dismissed

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Robinson v. Conagra Poultry Co., No. 07-CV-1094, 2008 WL 4446599 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 30, 2008), the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas held that a plaintiff 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

The plaintiff, an African-American and a long-time employee of a ConAgra processing plant, contacted the company's hotline for confidentially reporting harassment or discrimination and complained that one of his supervisors, a Caucasian, was "driving and pushing him to get his work done," but he did not characterize the supervisor's behavior as racist or discriminatory. Id. at *1-2. He also claimed that he was later harassed by another Caucasian supervisor who blamed him for a mechanical breakdown and threatened to fire him and his co-worker. Id. at *3. The plaintiff claimed that he reported the supervisor's conduct to his Union, and after that, he was never accused of causing mechanical breakdowns again. Id. He also claimed that another Caucasian supervisor refused to allow him to take time off from work on two occasions, stating that he did not have any sick leave and was needed at work, and that another supervisor had pointed a finger at him and yelled at him. Id. He also alleged that another supervisor had "made a kicking motion with his leg" once when he was late for a meeting, indicating that he should hurry and get in the meeting, but admitted that he was not touched and that he had never been kicked by anyone at the plant. Id. He stated that he overheard this supervisor calling another employee "boy" once also. Id.

The plaintiff claimed that he had heard racial slurs and racially derogatory language on several occasions during his tenure at the plant, but admitted that none of the supervisors had ever used racial slurs or profanity towards him. Id. He further alleged that other Caucasian employees had used racial slurs and derogatory language in front of him or about him, but in the instances when he had reported their behavior, they had apparently been dealt with and it had not happened again. Id. at *3-4. He had also complained about racially discriminatory graffiti on the bathroom walls, but admitted that none of it was directed at him personally and that the graffiti had been painted over several times. Id. at *4.

He also claimed that the defendants had been lax in regard to the safety of African-Americans working at the plant. Id. In support of this assertion, he stated that once a motor had fallen and landed near him; afterwards, his supervisor had made sure that he was not hurt and allowed him an hour break to calm down. Id. at *5. On another occasion he and the other workers in the rendering area became overheated, and the plant's safety manager had taken their body temperatures and made them get in a cool place with cooling rags on their head, where he had recuperated for an hour. Id. There was also a bomb threat at the plant once, during which all employees were made to leave the plant and stand inside the gate by the security building, which the plaintiff claimed was not a safe enough distance from the plant, although he admitted that all employees were held inside the gate, not just African-Americans. Id. He also claimed that he and other African-American employees were assigned the dirtiest jobs in the plant and that Caucasians were hired and promoted with more ease than African-Americans. Id.

The plaintiff and seven other employees filed a class action suit against the defendants 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 *6. The court denied class certification but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed individually, and the defendants moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims. 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 7.

Analysis and Holdings

In order to establish a racially hostile work environment claim, an employee must show that: 1) he is 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 *8. To satisfy the fourth requirement, the harassment must be severe and pervasive. Id. The court found that five racial slurs over a 25-year period was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, and neither was the graffiti on the bathroom walls, and the court further found nothing inherently racial about his supervisors' outbursts or behavior. Id. at *9-10. The court further noted that the plaintiff offered no evidence of disparate treatment other than a few isolated incidents over the past 25 years, which were not severe or pervasive enough to have affected a term or condition of his employment, and that there was no evidence that the unsafe conditions he complained of were based upon or motivated by race because all employees had been subjected to the same conditions. Id. at *10-11. The court therefore granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Id. at *11.

The case was decided on September 30, 2008.