Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp.
614 F.3d 1132, 2008 WL 8085719, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 28109 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim, including acts outside the statutory limitations period, is permissible for assessing liability, so long as at least one act contributing to that environment occurs within the statutory period.
Facts:
- In 1995, Ranee Tademy, an African-American employee at Union Pacific, was threatened by a coworker, Shane Marvin, after Tademy questioned Marvin's refusal to respond to radio calls, which another coworker attributed to Marvin's dislike of Black people.
- In 1996, Tademy found the word "nigger" etched into his locker.
- In 1997, Tademy discovered the words "nigger go home" on his locker and two racist cartoons posted on company billboards.
- Between 1998 and 2000, Tademy repeatedly found racist graffiti in restrooms, including the word "nigger," a "Sambo" character, and the phrase "nigger swimming pool" pointing to a toilet.
- In 1999, Tademy witnessed a coworker refer to an African-American manager as "F *ing Kunta Kinte."
- In January 2001, a yard manager, David Cagle, addressed Tademy by asking, "What time does this job go to work, boy?"
- In January 2002, an employee hacked a manager's email account and sent a message to numerous employees to "Keep an eye on the slaves, seriously," which Tademy saw posted throughout the facility.
- On July 4, 2003, Tademy found a life-size hangman's noose prominently displayed on a wall clock, which caused him to become physically ill. He subsequently took disability leave in August 2003 due to depression and anxiety.
Procedural Posture:
- In June 2001, Ranee Tademy filed his first charge of discrimination with the Utah Antidiscrimination & Labor Division (UALD).
- After receiving a right-to-sue letter in August 2002, Tademy agreed not to pursue a lawsuit in exchange for Union Pacific's promise to implement annual EEO training.
- Union Pacific later cancelled the promised training.
- In January 2004, Tademy filed a second charge of discrimination with the UALD.
- After receiving a second right-to-sue letter, Tademy filed suit against Union Pacific in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging a racially hostile work environment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific on all claims.
- Tademy, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Union Pacific as the appellee.
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 a series of racially harassing incidents over several years, culminating in the discovery of a hangman's noose, create a triable issue of fact for a hostile work environment claim sufficient to preclude summary judgment, even when many of the incidents fall outside the statutory limitations period?
Opinions:
Majority - Henry, Chief Judge
Yes. A series of racially harassing incidents over several years, culminating in the discovery of a hangman's noose, creates a triable issue of fact for a hostile work environment claim sufficient to preclude summary judgment. The court applied the Supreme Court's holding in Morgan, which established that for a hostile work environment claim, the entire scope of the harassment, including acts outside the statute of limitations, can be considered for liability as long as one contributing act occurred within the statutory period. The court found that the noose incident served as this anchoring act and that the prior incidents of racist graffiti, slurs, and comments were sufficiently related to constitute a single, continuous unlawful employment practice. The court emphasized that the cumulative effect of these incidents, especially the presence of a noose—a powerful and repugnant racist symbol—was severe enough that a reasonable jury could find the conditions of Tademy's employment were altered. Furthermore, a triable issue existed as to the adequacy of Union Pacific's response, as its repeated failure to investigate anonymous racist graffiti could be seen as condoning the behavior, creating a nexus to the later, more severe acts. The court also extended the Morgan framework to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, reasoning that the analysis for hostile environment claims should be consistent under both statutes.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the continuing violation doctrine for hostile work environment claims as articulated in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan. It clarifies that multiple acts by different perpetrators can be linked to form a single claim and underscores that an employer's failure to investigate anonymous but repeated harassment like graffiti can establish liability by fostering a permissive environment for discrimination. By explicitly extending the Morgan timeliness rule to § 1981 claims, the court harmonized the analysis for hostile environment actions under both Title VII and § 1981. The case powerfully affirms the symbolic severity of a hangman's noose in the workplace, treating it as a potentially singular event egregious enough to support a hostile environment claim.
Unlock the full brief for Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp.