Alexander v. Opelika Pub. Schs., No. 08-11014 (11th Cir. 11/10/09) is an unpublished opinion which upholds summary judgment against an employee who claims
Based upon this showing, the Court concluded there was not sufficient evidence presented for a reasonable person to conclude that the harassment was frequent or severe. This case underscores the hesitancy federal courts have to find intentional discrimination when confronted with workplace insensitivity. It seems the unspoken rule is, that absent some objective showing actual job performance is adversely affected by the alleged harassing event, summary judgment is appropriate. A black worker being called "boy" by his supervisor and co-workers on 8 specific occasions, and additionally on occasions which the employee had no specific memory is not pervasive harassment.that he was called “boy” constantly, but could only recall eight specific instances over the course of two years where he was called “boy.” Second, in examining the severity of the alleged conduct, the most severe comment was made by his supervisor about how to tie a noose around a person’s neck. This comment, however, was not directed toward Alexander, and Alexander testified that he did not know whether this comment referred to black people. Further, none of the alleged racial comments contained threats of physical violence, and he did not demonstrate that the comments interfered with his job performance.
Posts
