Opinion ID: 1989271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: racially hostile work environment

Text: An employee has a right under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult ( Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v Vinson , 477 US 57, 65 [1986]). [W]hether an environment is `hostile' or `abusive' can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance ( Harris v Forklift Sys., Inc. , 510 US 17, 23 [1993]). The evidence is judged by the totality of the circumstances test ( see id .; Williams v County of Westchester , 171 F3d 98, 100 [2d Cir 1999]; Dooner v Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. , 157 F Supp 2d 265, 281 [SD NY 2001] [(T)he Plaintiff must demonstrate either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were sufficiently continuous and concerted to have altered the conditions of her working environment], quoting Cruz v Coach Stores, Inc. , 202 F3d 560, 570 [2d Cir 2000]; accord Whidbee v Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc. , 223 F3d 62, 69 [2d Cir 2000]). [T]he objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position considering `all the circumstances' ( Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 US 75, 81 [1998]; Harris v Forklift, 510 US at 23). Thus, plaintiff does not have to prove an intent to discriminate. Addressing only the racial epithets, appellant should be entitled to show that such statements interfered with Forrest's work environment ( see Schwapp v Town of Avon , 118 F3d 106, 110 [2d Cir 1997] [opprobrious racial comments were evidence enough to deny summary judgment motion]). If White staff were encouraged to call appellant our Black American Princess, on several occasions, and/or she was perceived to be or stated to be an uppity nigger, and/or appellant and other African-Americans were perceived as lazy people requiring stroking in order to work, appellant has alleged enough to withstand summary judgment.