The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Bryan Banks sued Sun Chemical Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII. Before the court is Sun Chemical’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
In October 2019, Banks, an African American male, was involved in a confrontation with Ricardo Nevarez, a Hispanic male coworker, at Sun Chemical. The incident began in the lunchroom and escalated when Nevarez followed Banks to the locker room, where Nevarez punched a locker near Banks and called him the “n-word” multiple times. Banks reported the incident to Plant Manager Sue Cornelsen, who initiated an HR investigation conducted by Antonella Warren.
The investigation revealed that both men had used profanity during the confrontation. Warren’s investigation also uncovered previous incidents where Nevarez had allegedly used racial slurs toward Mike Smallwood, the only other African American employee. Following the investigation, Nevarez received a five-day suspension without pay and a final written warning, while Banks received a written warning for his use of profanity during the incident.
No evidentiary disputes were noted in the opinion.
Legal Analysis
Hostile Work Environment: The court analyzed whether the single incident was sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment. The court found that Nevarez’s conduct went beyond mere utterance of epithets, including threatening behavior and charged language. The court noted that the racial epithets were directed at Banks and made in his presence, factors the Eighth Circuit considers significant. The court also found disputed facts regarding Sun Chemical’s knowledge of Nevarez’s previous racial harassment of Smallwood.
Retaliation: While the court questioned whether Banks suffered an adverse employment action through the written warning, it focused its analysis on pretext. The court found that Sun Chemical provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for issuing Banks the written warning based on his behavior during the confrontation. The court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that Sun Chemical’s explanations were inconsistent or that Banks was treated differently than other employees who used profanity.
The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim but granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim.
Schrag on Law 