Dive Brief:
- A Texas construction company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "when it fostered a work environment rife with racist comments and discriminatory work conditions" at a New York construction site in 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has alleged in a lawsuit.
- EEOC said in a statement that supervisors and employees at CCC Group Inc. used racial slurs and threatened black employees with nooses, among other things.
- The federal agency also said black employees were given more "physically taxing and dangerous work" than their white counterparts, including being assigned outdoor work in winter while white employees worked inside.
Dive Insight:
Title VII prohibits harassment based on race, among other protected characteristics. While an EEOC guidance makes clear that petty slights, annoyances and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of actionable harassment, employers generally are expected to investigate employee complaints and take action to prevent misconduct in the future.
"Employers need to proactively prevent any behavior that creates a racially hostile workplace," Jeffrey Burstein, an attorney for the EEOC's New York District Office said in the statement announcing the CCC Group lawsuit; "Here there were numerous examples of abhorrent racial discrimination and harassment. The use of a noose is especially vicious. Such misconduct violates federal law and common decency."
HR should make sure that a robust reporting system in place, experts say. Moreover, complaint procedures should allow employees to report concerns to more than one person, in case an immediate supervisor or HR rep is the alleged harasser, EEOC has said. Employers also need to follow up on employee complaints with a prompt and good-faith investigation of allegations and take swift and appropriate action where needed, according to employment law attorneys.
Failure to do so can create a culture of noncompliance and can lead to lawsuits, while appropriate action can reduce or eliminate liability. For example, a federal district court determined an employer was not liable for harassment alleged by three truck drivers — despite extensive evidence of a hostile work environment — because it took prompt remedial action sufficiently calculated to stop the harassment. When harassment was reported, the employer tried, within 24 hours, to separate the complainant from the accused and took a number of other actions to resolve the problem.
Compliance training also may be crucial in preventing discrimination and harassment claims. Experts suggest that employers conduct harassment training at least once a year, with separate sessions for managers and employees.
