Employee's Treatment at Pork Processing Plant Not Kosher
by Laura L. Hoppenstein
April Landers' experience at Quality Pork Processors, Inc. was less than desirable. She was hired in December 1998 to work the second shift in the "skinning room" of the slaughterhouse. One month into her employment, two co-workers began making daily derogatory comments about Landers' boyfriend. Landers, who is white, was dating a black man at the time. The co-workers referred to her boyfriend as a "nigger" and laughed when she asked them to stop. Landers complained to her supervisor, who responded by saying that they were "just boys."
Around the same time, Landers missed a day of work after working overtime the night before. She was reprimanded by her supervisor who precluded her from working future overtime and yelled at her in front of other employees.
One week later, Landers met with the company's human resources director to complain about her supervisor's behavior. She also told the director that two co-workers had been using racial epithets in reference to her boyfriend. Three days later, Landers was transferred to the newly created position of "fecal contaminant inspector" which required that she remove extraneous fecal matter from each slab of pork as it traveled down the assembly line. Although her job changed, her pay and benefits stayed the same. Landers viewed this new assignment as retaliatory for bringing the complaint to management's attention.
Landers filed charges of harassment and retaliation with the EEOC, which sued the company on her behalf. The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to the employer on the issue of retaliation, stating that neither her hours, nor her salary or benefits were decreased as a result of the transfer, even though the job was less desirable. Therefore, it concluded, no adverse employment action occurred.
The court denied summary judgment to the employer on the racial harassment claim, stating that the co-workers' repeated use of highly offensive racial remarks and the company's delay in investigating and disciplining the remarks was sufficient to send the Title VII racial harassment charge to a jury. The court concluded that "While the racially derogatory term may not have been used in reference to Landers, the language was intentionally directed at her. Furthermore, the racist epithet used in this case is irredeemably offensive and cannot be characterized, as a matter of law, as being either harmless or casual."
February 2001
Kollman & Saucier, P.A., The Business Law Building, 1823 York Road, Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300
Fax: 410-727-4391 © 2008 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. All rights reserved.
Website maintained by Armistead Technologies, Llc.tm
