Court Opinion

ID: 9473980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:45:02.131115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:50.775362
License: Public Domain

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that persons of Mexican ancestry are entitled to the protection of section 1981 where, as here, they are discriminated against based on some perceived racial differences, as opposed to mere national origin discrimination. As noted in Madrigal v. Certainteed Corp., 508 F.Supp. 310 (W.D.Mo.1981), Mexican-American ancestry is understood to signify a mixture of Spanish and Indian origins. I do not agree, however, that the evidence of discrimination in this case is sufficient to support a section 1981 violation.
As stated by the majority, an employer may be held liable for discrimination under a “hostile working environment” theory if the employer tolerates a working environment “so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability for minority group members.” Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234, 238 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 957, 92 S.Ct. 2058, 32 L.Ed.2d 343 (1972). To establish a racially hostile working environment Erebia, a production foreman at Chrysler, relies on his testimony concerning two employees formerly under his supervision. Erebia testified that Rolland Forney refused to follow Erebia’s instructions on a daily basis, from 1977 until Forney was laid off in 1980, because Erebia was Mexican and Forney was white; and that Forney would call Erebia names such as “wetback” and “tomato picker.” Erebia further testified that from April 1980 to August 1980, when Erebia was foreman in a different department, he was subjected to racial slurs by Wilbur Wood, another subordinate. Since the two subordinates were in different departments, Erebia was subject to harassment by only one employee at any particular time.
The court in Johnson v. Bunny Bread Co., 646 F.2d 1250, 1297 (8th Cir.1981), articulated the applicable standard as follows: “Unquestionably, a working environment dominated by racial slurs constitutes a violation of Title VII. This is not to say, however, that all racial slurs rise to the level of Title VII violations. In this area, we deal with degrees.” Racial remarks by a single subordinate do not create a working environment dominated by racial slurs. Racial harassment directed at an employee by a single supervisor can sufficiently poison the employee’s working atmosphere, since a supervisor can dominate the workplace with respect to his subordinate. The attitudes of a number of co-employees can also control one’s working atmosphere. But here we have the weakest case of all — a foreman claiming that a single one of his subordinates has, by using racial *1261epithets, “dominated” the foreman’s working environment.
The degree of racial hostility found to constitute a racially charged working atmosphere in other cases has been considerably greater and more widespread than that faced by Erebia. For example, in EEOC v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 488 F.Supp. 381 (D.Minn.1980), a black employee was subjected to a pattern of racial epithets written on blackboards and on signs on trucks; Ku Klux Klan crosses in the workplace; and constant racial harassment in the lunchroom by co-employees. Supervisors joined in the harassment and told the plaintiff he was a disgrace to his race. Taylor v. Jones, 653 F.2d 1193, 1198-91 (8th Cir.1981), involved a department-wide “dismal” racial atmosphere characterized by threats, fights, epithets, and display of a hangman’s noose. Patterns of racial epithets by supervisors were held sufficient in Leonard v. City of Frankfort Electric and Water Plant, 752 F.2d 189 (6th Cir.1985), and Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir.1982). The bigotry of one subordinate does not poison the working atmosphere to the extent it was poisoned in these cases.
A § 1981 violation requires a finding of intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. Intent may be inferred from the employer’s tolerance of racial harassment “sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment,” Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 (11th Cir.1982). An employer free of discriminatory motives would not tolerate disruption of the workplace by racial harassment. Such an inference is not proper where, under the circumstances, a nondiscriminatory employer would not be expected to take further action. Here the employer’s actions are fully consistent with the inference that Erebia’s supervisors merely expected their foreman to handle a problem with his subordinate by himself. Erebia’s immediate supervisor repeatedly told him to “build a case.” Specific times, places, and witnesses would be needed to discharge or suspend a union employee. There is no evidence that Erebia, an experienced foreman, did build his case. The personnel manager, Lenz, advised Erebia that he should ignore verbal abuse from subordinates and not pay any attention to shop talk. The later of Erebia’s two complaints to Lenz was in the summer of 1977, five and one-half years before suit was filed. An inference of intent to discriminate, proper when management tolerates racial harassment by supervisors or co-employees, is not necessarily proper when management tolerates a racially-based disciplinary problem a foreman has with a subordinate. The racially charged hostile working atmosphere referred to in Title VII cases is thus needed to supply the intent element as well as the discrimination element of a § 1981 claim.
The existence of a racially charged work atmosphere is a prerequisite to a finding of discrimination in this case. After stating this standard, the majority holds the employer liable for tolerating “repeated slurs” without considering whether repeated slurs by a subordinate are sufficient to establish a racially charged working atmosphere. In doing so the majority in effect holds the employer vicariously liable for the bigotry of an employee. As I would not find the evidence in this case sufficient to permit the jury to find a racially charged working atmosphere, I would reverse the judgment of the District Court. Were I to reach the issue, I would agree with the Court that plaintiff failed to prove compensatory damages.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.