National Litigation Hotline

The Eighth Circuit has held that an African-American's hostile work environment claim based in part on a threat of physical violence contained in racist graffiti could not be resolved on summary judgment. Reedy v. Quebecor Printing Eagle, Inc., 333 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. June 30).

Tommy Reedy, an employee at a commercial printing plant, brought hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims against his employer, citing five instances of hostile treatment. The incidents included an instance in which a fellow employee refused to bring Reedy's lunch with those of other employees, saying, “Go your own self the next time,” along with a racial and obscene epithet; an occasion upon which Reedy saw two co-workers approach a black employee and call him by a racial slur; coworker accusations against another black employee that he stole from the company, accompanied by a comment that “All you [ethnic slur]s steal,” and by throwing a metal blade at the employee; and two instances of racially hostile graffiti in September and October of 1998. In the first instance, the word “coon” was written below Reedy's name, and an ape was drawn next to the scrawled phrase, “all [ethnic slur]s must die.” In the second instance, graffiti containing Reedy's name written below the phrase “kill all [ethnic slur]s” in an employee bathroom. Reedy reported the first instance of the graffiti to a supervisor, who had the graffiti removed. When Reedy reported the second instance, however, the supervisor responded, “What do you want me to do, tear the wall down?” The graffiti was not removed until after Reedy had left the company. The district court granted the company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Reedy's claims. Relying on Woodland v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Sons Inc., 302 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2002), the lower court found that the racial epithets in graffiti could not support a hostile work environment claim.