Cruel treatment does not amount to racial harassment

This case is a primer on how bad and even cruel treatment at work may not be enough to create a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The plaintiffs, who work in state corrections, lose their case.

The case is Browne v. New York State Department of Corrections, a summary order issued on April 23. A hostile work environment is only illegal when it is motivated by race, gender, age, disability, religion, or any other protected class. Many hostile environments are therefore not illegal. A rude boss or hostile co-worker who has little, if any, skills in getting along with others is not violating Title VII. The same holds true for the workplace filled with anti-social personalities. In cases like this, it may be easy to prove the harassment is motivated by race or gender; the harassment may be expressly racist or sexist. 

But in this case, the Court of Appeals (Menashi, Lynch and Cabranes) holds, plaintiffs cannot prove the harassment was motivated by race. Here is how the Court summarizes plaintiffs' claim: 

They alleged that their co-workers tampered with their timecards, put transfer slips in their mailboxes, gossiped about them, called  them names such as “rat,” and circulated derogatory poems about them in the workplace. Parker also alleged that co-workers stalked her, and Browne alleged that co-workers cut the valve stem on his car. Browne and Parker further alleged that their supervisors assigned them to less desirable posts  and disregarded their staffing requests." 

This treatment is pretty bad. But is it illegal? It is not illegal, the Court says.

None of the alleged harassment  referred  to  either  plaintiff’s  race.  Instead,  the  only  evidence referencing any reason for the alleged abuse, including the plaintiffs’ own testimony, tended to indicate that Browne and Parker were harassed because they were perceived to be disloyal. Parker stated that other officers believed she was a “rat” because she had testified on behalf of an inmate in a disciplinary hearing. As a result, those officers thought that she did not “stick up for the blues.” Browne stated that other officers regarded him as a “scumbag” because he had testified against a fellow corrections officer at another institution where he had worked.

What about the poems? Plaintiffs said they were racially offensive, but the Court of Appeals does not see it that way. The poems make no reference to race and instead describe an officer who served as an informant for the Office of Special Investigations.