Mazen Abdel-Ghani v. Target Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
686 F. App’x 377 (2017)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To be legally actionable as a hostile work environment, harassment must be so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment; isolated offensive utterances and non-threatening comments are typically insufficient. Furthermore, a single stray remark by a supervisor, without more, is generally not enough to establish an inference of discriminatory motive in a termination decision.

Facts:

Mazen Abdel-Ghani, a Palestinian immigrant, was hired by MarketSource in August 2013 to work at a Target Mobile kiosk within a Target store, starting in October 2013.
Abdel-Ghani had a contentious relationship with his MarketSource sales manager, Courtney Liebhard, whom he reported to human resources for allegedly being under the influence at work.
Liebhard complained about Abdel-Ghani's conduct towards her and customers.
During an argument about scheduling, Liebhard allegedly told Abdel-Ghani to 'go back home, go to your country.'
Over his two months of employment, Abdel-Ghani claimed he heard Target employees call him derogatory names like 'camel jockey,' 'Muslim,' 'Arab,' and 'terrorist' on at least ten occasions.
Abdel-Ghani also overheard another employee make a comment that people like him should be 'rounded up in one place and nuke[d].'
MarketSource district manager, Steve Varhol, instructed Liebhard to collect complaints about Abdel-Ghani from Target employees.
In mid-December 2013, Varhol suspended and then fired Abdel-Ghani, citing issues with Liebhard, Target staff, and guests.

Procedural Posture:

Mazen Abdel-Ghani filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Abdel-Ghani sued Target Corporation and MarketSource, Inc. in Minnesota state court.
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the actions were consolidated.
After discovery, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
A U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that summary judgment be granted in favor of the defendants.
The U.S. District Court judge adopted the recommendation and granted summary judgment to the defendants.
Abdel-Ghani (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does hearing approximately ten offensive but non-threatening comments over two months constitute a hostile work environment, and is a supervisor's single 'go back home' comment sufficient to infer a termination was based on national origin?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No, the conduct did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment, and the single comment was insufficient to create an inference of discrimination. To establish a hostile work environment, conduct must be extreme enough to change the terms and conditions of employment. Here, while the approximately ten comments were 'morally repulsive,' they were not physically threatening and were more akin to 'mere offensive utterance[s].' Crucially, Abdel-Ghani failed to show that the comments unreasonably interfered with his work performance. Regarding the discrimination claim, Abdel-Ghani failed to establish a prima facie case because the single 'go back home' comment from Liebhard, which the court deemed 'facially neutral,' was not enough to show discriminatory animus, and there was no evidence that the ultimate decision-maker, Varhol, harbored any such bias.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the high threshold required for hostile work environment claims under Title VII. It demonstrates that courts will distinguish between conduct that is merely offensive or 'morally repulsive' and conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to legally alter employment conditions. The decision also illustrates the difficulty of proving discriminatory intent based on 'stray remarks,' particularly when made by someone other than the final decision-maker. This precedent makes it more challenging for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment without evidence of frequent, severe harassment or a clear link between discriminatory comments and an adverse employment action.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Mazen Abdel-Ghani v. Target Corporation (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"