-------------------------
African-American
employee who reported one incident of a racist remark was not protected from
retaliation because he did not have an "objectively reasonable" belief that
he was opposing a racially hostile work environment.
Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp.,
458 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. August 14, 2006) - [Editor's Note: The court's original
opinion was issued on May 12, 2006 and is found at 447 F.3d 324. This
decision on rehearing does not change the original outcome.] This is a Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section
1981 action alleging retaliation. On the day that the D.C. snipers (John
Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo) were
captured, Robert Jordan, an African-American, was in a room at work with a
co-worker who was watching the news on television. The co-worker allegedly
said: "[t]hey should put those two black monkeys in a cage with a bunch of
black apes and let the apes f*ck them." Jordan reported the comment and
within a month he had been terminated because he was "disruptive," his
position "had come to an end," and he was told management personnel "don't
like you and you don't like them." The issue presented is whether Jordan
engaged in protected activity. To have engaged in protected activity, he
must have had an objectively reasonable belief that he was opposing conduct
that violated Title VII. In this case, he must have had an objectively
reasonable belief that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment.
The court holds that he did not have an objectively reasonable belief that
this single incident of a racist comment that was not directed at him was
sufficiently severe to rise to the level of a hostile work environment.
Therefore, he did not engage in protected activity and was not protected
under Title VII's anti-retaliation provisions. Also, in this opinion issued
on rehearing, Jordan argues that he adequately pled a race discrimination
claim apart from racial harassment. But the paragraphs of his complaint upon which he relies do not set
forth facts of race discrimination. The complaint's legal conclusion that he
was discriminated against based on race is insufficient. Circuit Judge King
dissents. Click
here to see
actual case.