Race Discrimination Case

I just read this 11th Circuit case: Alverene Butler v. Ala. DOT, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16113 (11th Cir. Ala. July 30, 2008) which can be found at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200713358.pdf. This sentence in particular upsets me: "Assuming that Butler actually believed that Stacey's offensive statements constituted an unlawful employment practice of ALDOT, that belief was not objectively reasonable. It follows that her retaliation claim fails as a matter of law and judgment should have been entered for ALDOT on it." By way of brief background, 2 coworkers (1 black, 1 white) were in a truck together and had a minor accident. The white coworker used the "n" word a couple of times directed at the other driver who'd caused the accident. The black coworker tried to report the use of the racial epithets to the supervisor in the hospital and was cut off. She tried again to report it about 3 months later. Before long she found she was being treated worse than white colleagues and eventually filed a lawsuit alleging just that - retaliation.

The 11th Circuit's essential reasoning was that since the use of the offensive racial epithets could not have, for technical legal reaons, constituted a "hostile work environment" in that particular situation (nor was it alleged that it did), anything bad that happened to her as a result of her making the complaint could not have amounted to retaliation under the law.

This reasoning to me is ridiculous. Decisions like this are precedent-setting; they are the law. The intent of having laws is to affect future behavior (or else the decisions wouldn't be published and binding). Isn't the natural result of this decision to have a chilling effect on employees' complaints about situations they perceive to be racially hostile??? Is the Court suggesting that when a black employee hears a coworker angrily using the "n" word that she should engage in a complex legal analysis to screen through all the particulars about where the coworkers were when the word was said, who it was directed at, what the frequency was, etc before reporting it? In this case, the Court has completely foreclosed a retaliation claim because it was not "objectively reasonable" for her to believe that complaining about the racial epithet constituted a "hostile work environment." In other words, she could have said, "Supervisor, Ms. Coworker just used the 'n' word a couple of times in an angry way in my presence and I found it racially offensive" to which the Supervisor could have legally responded "Thank you for telling me. You're fired." That is the logical extension of the finding and is ludicrous.

Worse yet, the average worker is going to have no clue about this or other similar cases. It is individuals HR/management who are more likey to hear from their attorneys what this and other similar cases are saying. If anything this will empower them not to take complaints seriously.

My second major problem with this case: This is yet another example of a losing race discrimination case where African-American is the victim (in this case the plaintiff's jury verdict was overturned). I implore a sociologist or other social scientist to track rulings in GA/11th Circuit to see how they play out - generally (as compared to other jurisdictions), but then specifically the difference between situations where the plaintiff is white versus black. Anecdotally it seems to me that so-called "reverse race" cases overwhelmingly fare much better in this jurisdiction. If that is indeed the case, it is at best ironic that there seems to be something causing a significant disparate impact along race lines in the decisions made in race discrimination cases. It seems to me that if I had an employment case where the statistics were as flagrant as what I believe they are in this jurisdiction where Title VII race discrimination decisions are made in favor of whites at a much higher rather than of blacks, I would have some great evidence showing a "pattern and practice" of discrimination. Recall that under the law these kinds of results need not be "intentional" or full of malice - they are likely tied to something structural. If that is indeed the case, then there is a very serious problem indeed.

The thing is, this case probably did have some legal problems - it may have even had legitimate reasons for being overturned. But to me the legitimate reasons were not given their day in court.