Can A Judge Really Say African American Does Not Mean Black—And That Calling Someone “Monkey” Is Not Racist?
Some race discrimination cases are very clear. However, that does not stop some judges from messing it up.
The District Court actually decided that when Thomas Smith and Monaleto Sneed, two African American truck drivers, compared themselves to their white coworkers, their testimony was invalid because “African American” does not mean “Black.” The judge wrote: “[B]ecause [Plaintiffs’] protected class is African American—as opposed to Black, importantly—the relevant comparators for [them] must be non-African American, which is not synonymous with being ‘white’; a person can be African American even if someone might characterize them as being ‘white’ based on a subjective perception of how light-colored their skin may be.” Wait. What? That reasoning is as twisted as it sounds.
Then, in the same opinion, the District Court concluded that when supervisors repeatedly called Smith and Sneed “monkey” and “monkey ass,” those words were not racial slurs. That is like saying fire is not hot, and water is not wet.
Fortunately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was having none of it. In Smith v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc., the Sixth Circuit reversed and laid down a clear roadmap for how an employee can prove race employment discrimination and racial harassment. Smith and Sneed testified that their supervisors not only hurled racial insults at them, but also piled on longer routes, longer hours, and broken-down trucks while treating white drivers better. The District Court brushed aside their testimony as “insufficient.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, incredulous at that reasoning, held that the evidence easily raised a genuine dispute for trial. The Court of Appeals held: “Plaintiffs’ testimony that their supervisors called them ‘monkey’ and ‘monkey ass’ constituted evidence of race-specific harassment. There is ‘no benign explanation’ in the record as to why Plaintiffs’ supervisors would have directed these specific terms at them.” Not done, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit further slapped the District Court’s reasoning:
The term “monkey” has an extensive history as a racial slur against African Americans. We have recognized that, “[g]iven the history of racial stereotypes against African-Americans and the prevalent one of African-Americans as animals or monkeys, it is [] reasonable—perhaps even [] obvious”—to conclude that the invocation of the term “monkey” against an African American is “intended [as a] racial insult.” United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 977 (6th Cir. 1998). Our sister circuits have been similarly forthright about the term’s racial valence. As the Fourth Circuit has explained, the “use of the word ‘monkey’ to describe African Americans” carries “similar[] odious[ness]” as the use of the word “n—-r,” which is “pure anathema to African-Americans.” Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir. 2001). “To suggest that a human being’s physical appearance is essentially a caricature of a jungle beast goes far beyond the merely unflattering; it is degrading and humiliating in the extreme.” Id.
Best Race Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Can I Sue If My Boss Calls Black Workers “Monkeys” And “Slaves”? I Need A Race Discrimination Lawyer?
- Racial Discrimination: Defendant Who Argued That The Term “N****r” and “Monkey” Not “Slurs But, Rather, As Terms Of Endearment” Shockingly Loses, Pays Large Sum Of Money.
- No, Judge, The “N-Word” Is Not – And Never Will Be -A Term Of Endearment
- Judges May Have Discriminatory Bias Too
Does It Matter If The Harasser Is The Same Race As The Victim?
One of the supervisors accused of using the slurs was Black himself, but the District Court seized on the idea that this somehow diluted the racism. To make matters stranger, the judge also emphasized that there was no proof that the supervisor was “African American,” as if the law hinged on parsing identity categories that finely. The Sixth Circuit rejected this outright. The Court of Appeals held: “Title VII can be violated by members of the same race or sex as the victim of discrimination.” Put simply, race discrimination is race discrimination, no matter who delivers it.
Best Racially Hostile Work Environment Attorney Blogs on Point:
- Can One Racist Quote Win a Race Discrimination Case?
- Don’t Count On Judges To Do What You Expect
- Some Judges Will Just Get Employment Law Wrong
Can I Sue My Employer If They Call Me Slurs And Treat Me Worse Than Others?
The District Court tried to compartmentalize the evidence. It looked at the racial slurs separately from the threats, shouting, and demeaning treatment. Then it declared that neither was “severe or pervasive.” That move left the Sixth Circuit shaking its head.
The Sixth Circuit reminded us that the law requires looking at the “totality of the circumstances.” The Court of Appeals held: “Facially neutral abusive conduct can support a finding of animus sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim when that conduct is viewed in the context of other, overtly discriminatory conduct.” In other words, you do not get to put the slurs in one box and the screaming in another box and then declare each box is too light to matter. You look at the entire toxic package.
Best Employee’s Rights Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Who Is A Similarly Situated Employee For Disparate Treatment Discrimination Claims?
- What Is Disparate Treatment?
Can Disparate Work Assignments Count As Harassment?
Yes. The District Court dismissed testimony that Smith and Sneed had longer routes, longer hours, and worse trucks. It claimed that this was not “the type of conduct” that counts as harassment. Wrong again. The Sixth Circuit held that even work assignments and conditions can contribute to a hostile work environment if they form part of a pattern of hostility.
The Court of Appeals emphasized: “Discrete [employment-related] acts may contribute to different and continuing harms—for example, the pervasive humiliation of an employee, and in those circumstances, the ancillary impacts may be considered in a hostile-work-environment claim.” The Sixth Circuit also held that evidence of disproportionately burdensome assignments, when linked to other racially hostile conduct, can support a finding that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. The answer is simple: choose a firm that has the resources, experience, and dedication to fight for you. Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated solely to employee rights. That means more resources than smaller firms, and the ability to stand toe-to-toe with big corporate employers.
We offer free initial consultations and a no-fee guarantee—you do not pay unless we win. Our trial lawyers have taken cases all the way to verdict, with a history of great results. But numbers are not enough. What sets us apart is empathy. We know what it feels like to be wrongfully terminated or wrongfully fired, and we care about helping employees rebuild. Call us today to talk with an experienced employment law lawyer who will fight for your rights.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This race discrimination blog provides general information about workplace rights under employment law. It should not be taken as legal advice. Every employee situation is different, and you should consult with a qualified employment lawyer or attorney for specific advice. No promises are being made about the outcome of any case. This hostile work environment blog is a legal advertisement. It discusses topics such as discrimination, wrongful termination, wrongfully fired employees, and how an employer may violate workplace rights, including race discrimination, but it does not substitute for direct legal counsel.