Sixth Circuit Reverses Employer’s Summary Judgment on Racial Hostile Workplace Claim Brought by Pro Se Plaintiff

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit reversed a Franklin County employer’s summary judgment on a racially hostile workplace claim brought by a pro se plaintiff.   Paassawe v. Action Group, Inc., No. 12-3701 (6^th Cir. 7-17-13).  In this case, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that he was subjected to verbal taunts and threats by his co-workers and discrimination on account of his race and support of President Obama during the 2008 election.   He claimed he was fired after missing work for a week following a workplace injury.   The Court ruled that the comments made to plaintiff about his support for Obama were not merely politically based, but the evidence also showed the comments were racially motivated because plaintiff was repeatedly referred to as “boy” and he was threatened.  He also showed that the conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive, particularly when he showed that his complaints about his co-workers comments were not adequately addressed by management.  The Court also found that he adequately proved possible retaliation based on his complaints of harassment and unequal application of the company’s political paraphernalia policy.

According to the Court’s opinion, the company prohibited political paraphernalia in the workplace, but distributed McCain literature and paraphernalia.  By itself, this would not show race discrimination.    However, evidence that management asked him about his “true identity” and how he could afford to drive his nice car on his low wages, called the plaintiff “boy” and threatened him when he complained about the unequal application of the political paraphernalia policy could support a claim for racial discrimination.    The Court also found sufficient proof of retaliation based on differing accounts of the circumstances of his termination, the threatening comments from management about his job, and that he was fired within three months of raising complaints about the racial discrimination and harassment.

After checking the Franklin County and Southern District dockets, I can tell you this is not the plaintiff’s first  pro se rodeo.  After a few other lawsuits against other entities, he also sought and obtained unemployment compensation from this same employer and, with an attorney, pursued a claim for workers’ compensation.    

 NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.