No hostile work environment despite offensive images

Although a company allegedly showed racially insensitive images during an anti­discrimination training, including a Swastika, a hooded Klan person, and a noose, that one-time occurrence did not constitute a hostile work environment, a Virginia federal court judge has ruled.

In January 2021, Russell Arnold, an African American man who worked for United Parcel Supply Chain Solutions Inc., participated in a mandatory workplace training. During the training, the presenter showed several racially offensive images to the participants. Over the following weeks, Arnold complained about the images several times to United Parcel, both formally and informally. In March 2021, United Parcel terminated Arnold.

Arnold sued United Parcel and three of its employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that they created a hostile work environment, retaliated against him and wrongfully terminated him. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim.

No hostile work environment

The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to allege facts demonstrating that the training images “[were] sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiff’s conditions of employment and to create an abusive work environment.” Instead, the plaintiff only asserted that his employer showed racially insensitive images during an anti­discrimination training, and that it failed to remedy the issue once he complained.

While the plaintiff mentioned the “trauma and fear suffered by African Americans due to the history of slavery in the U.S. and the terroristic symbolism of the noose,” the court found that he failed to show that the images from the training amounted to more than a one-time “mere offensive utterance.”

No wrongful termination

The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim failed because he did not allege any facts to establish whether his position remained open or if United Parcel  filled the position with a “similarly qualified applicant” who was not African American. Because Arnold had not sufficiently pleaded all elements of a wrongful termination claim, the court dismissed his wrongful termination claim without prejudice.