Blog

Union Pacific Employee’s Hostile Work Environment Suit Can Include Acts Outside Statutory Period.

Posted by: Melville Johnson, P.C.
May 23, 2008
Topic: Employment Discrimination

The Attorneys with Melville Johnson, P.C. can provide legal assistance in cases alleging discrimination under Title VII:

Mr. Ranee Tademy worked for Union Pacific as a foreman. He subsequently alleged that beginning in 1995 he was subjected to verbal and written harassment including racist messages written on his locker, numerous instances of racist graffiti, and being called "boy" by a fellow supervisor. According to Mr. Tademy, he complained but either the complaints were not investigated by Union Pacific, or, when employees were disciplined, the discipline was rescinded. Mr. Tademy eventually complained to the Utah Antidiscrimination & Labor Division, and received a right-to-sue letter in 2002. He then met with his unit superintendent and said he did not wish to sue, but simply wanted to work without harassment.

In 2003, Mr. Tademy was randomly drug-tested during three consecutive weeks, which he alleged were retaliation for his harassment claim. He also found a life-sized hangman's noose in his workspace. He was ultimately placed on disability retirement after being diagnosed with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Mr. Tademy filed another claim with UALD for the additional events, and he received another right-to-sue letter. Mr. Tademy subsequently filed a federal lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The attorneys with Melville Johnson, P.C. have extensive experience in litigating employment discrimination cases. The District Court in Utah granted summary judgment to Union Pacific. The lawyers with Melville Johnson, P.C., represent clients in filing federal appeals. Mr. Tademy appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeals noted that, although Title VII does not specifically mention hostile work environment, that cause of action was recognized by the courts. For purposes of filing an EEOC claim within 300 days of the discriminatory conduct, the Court distinguished hostile environment from other discrimination claims, because while ordinary discrimination claims are usually based on discrete acts easily placed within a statutory limitation period, hostile work environment claims are composed of a series of separate but related acts. The Court of Appeals considered whether all of Mr. Tademy's allegations were part of the same hostile work environment, and if at least one of the allegations occurred during the limitation period. The Court of Appeals then evaluated whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude the harassment impacted Mr. Tademy's employment. Finally, the Court of Appeals considered whether Mr. Tademy had presented evidence of an inadequate response by Union Pacific.

Mr. Tademy based his claim partly on the drug testing and the noose incident, both of which occurred within the limitation period. The Court found the drug testing not to be discriminatory, but upheld his claim on the noose incident. Since that conduct fell within the period of limitation, the Court held that the hostile environment claim encompassed the previous acts of discrimination because they all occurred as part of one unit.

The Court then addressed Union Pacific's response to the allegations. It held that Union Pacific was on notice of the harassment, and that Tademy had to show a nexus between its response and the ongoing behavior. The Court found that Union Pacific had either failed to investigate or failed to properly discipline the responsible employees, so that employees could harass with impunity.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This summary is primarily based on information provided by the Judicial View

Blog

Union Pacific Employee’s Hostile Work Environment Suit Can Include Acts Outside Statutory Period.

Topics

Recent Updates

Archives

Web Resources