New England Biz Law Update
A federal trial court has ruled that a Black employee who was fired after the single use of an anti-Black slur could not sue for wrongful termination.
The incident took place after what the court described as an “apparently frustrating but fairly innocuous conversation” between two coworkers.
As the plaintiff walked toward the front door of the store, he was overheard muttering the n-word twice under his breath. The slur was not directed at anyone, and the coworker involved had not used the word himself.
The plaintiff was terminated.
He sued under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination and wrongful termination.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the claims, finding no evidence of racial bias in the firing and no evidence that Verizon treated employees of other races differently under similar circumstances.
The judge emphasized that Title VII does not shield employees from consequences simply because they belong to a protected class, nor does it protect the use of racially charged language, even if used colloquially or by members of that racial group.
The plaintiff failed to identify any non-Black employees who used slurs without being disciplined, the court said, and the court found no signs of pretext or retaliation.
Why it matters for employers
The case highlights that employers have a right, and in many cases, a duty, to enforce consistent standards around offensive language, regardless of the race or identity of the speaker.
Still, companies must ensure that disciplinary decisions are evenhanded, well-documented, and aligned with internal policy. Disparate enforcement or unclear rules could invite future claims.
The decision also serves as a reminder to train managers on how to respond when problematic language surfaces in workplace settings, even in contexts that are informal or non-confrontational.
