LEGAL BRIEF: Decision on EEOC Case to Establish a “Timely Claim”

This post is in reference to Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., Case No. 06-4073 (10th Cir., April 1, 2008). This case was partially about clarifying what constituted a timely complaint and determining if acts of harassment, etc. spread over many years could be considered as part of a collective act. In other words, could a recent act of harassment, etc. mean that past harassment could be considered--even if the past acts were outside the statutory time frame. Are they collective acts?

The EEOC filed a brief as amicus curiae to address the standard for establishing a timely claim involving a hostile work environment under National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). Beginning in the mid-1990s, the plaintiff (Tademy), who is black, experienced a succession of incidents of racial hostility in the workplace. He reported these incidents, but the employer/defendant either failed to investigate or imposed ineffectual discipline on the perpetrators.

In June 2001, plaintiff filed an EEOC charge about this harassment but decided not to file suit because defendant promised to institute training on harassment. Defendant allegedly did not do so. In July 2003, the plaintiff found a hangman’s noose at his worksite. Following an investigation, defendant fired the individual who admitted placing the noose; he was, however, later reinstated.

After word of the termination got out, plaintiff began to experience hostile treatment from his coworkers. In January 2004, plaintiff filed a second EEOC charge describing the noose incident and noting that he had also reported many other racial occurrences to management. He then filed suit. The district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of a hostile work environment. In reaching this conclusion, the court refused to consider the incidents occurring before plaintiff's first charge in 2001, holding that they were not part of the same hostile work environment.

In its amicus brief, the Commission argued that all of the alleged incidents were sufficiently related to one another in nature to constitute a single hostile work environment. The fact that different employees may have perpetrated each individual act should make no difference in determining whether a hostile work environment exists from the perspective of the victim. The Commission argued that under Morgan the plaintiff may obtain relief for the entire hostile work environment, including acts of harassment prior to his first charge, because it constituted a single violation. Even if the earlier acts of harassment were not part of the same hostile work environment, the district court should have considered them as background evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment during the charge-filing period (300 days).

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court may consider discriminatory behavior that occurred outside the 300-day statutory time period so long as one act contributing to the hostile environment occurred within the statutory time period. The Tenth Circuit also took the district court to task on the noose incident, stating it improperly adopted the coworker's explanation for the noose. Granting all inferences in favor of Tademy, the court found that in light of potential implausibilities in the coworker's story, a jury could find that the hanging of the noose stemmed from racial animus.

In essence, the Tenth Circuit’s decision states that as long as one act occurs with the statutory time period, all potentially illegal behavior can be considered as part of a collective act against a complaining employee.

Sources: http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/06annrpt/index.html