Dive Brief:
- A federal jury awarded $5 million in damages to a California truck driver who alleged claims against building materials company Cemex including discrimination on the basis of race and disability, according to a March 31 court filing.
- The plaintiff in Sample v. Cemex alleged that he endured near-daily harassment from co-workers and sued both Cemex as well as individual defendants. In January, a federal judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against individual defendants but allowed most of the plaintiff’s allegations against Cemex to proceed.
- The jury found that Cemex subjected the employee to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. It found for Cemex on a claim involving discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts and did not impose punitive damages on the company. In an email, a Cemex spokesperson told HR Dive that it was reviewing next steps in the proceedings.
Dive Insight:
The plaintiff, a Black man born with congenital aural atresia, alleged a wide-ranging list of claims in his fourth amended complaint, summarizing his treatment as “egregious.”
Specific claims included multiple instances of slurs and insults made by co-workers which led him to file multiple internal HR complaints that Cemex allegedly refused to investigate. He later added a claim contesting his termination from Cemex as unlawful retaliation. The company attributed the termination, which occurred after he filed the initial lawsuit, to the plaintiff’s failure to disclose his disabilities and medical condition when obtaining a federal medical certification to work as a driver.
The court’s January decision determined that Cemex had a legitimate reason for terminating the plaintiff, noting the lack of a valid U.S. Department of Transportation certification prevented him from driving.
However, the court allowed most of the plaintiff’s other claims to move forward, holding that the plaintiff met his burden showing that a dispute of material fact existed as to his discrimination and harassment claims. This included the plaintiff’s claim that the company’s HR department refused to investigate his reported harassment.
The jury ultimately concluded that the plaintiff had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Cemex management knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action to end it.
“We strongly oppose all workplace discrimination or harassment and are disappointed by the outcome of the trial,” the Cemex spokesperson told HR Dive.
The decision represents one of several recent jury verdicts awarding damages to plaintiffs who alleged hostile work environments. In February, for example, a Utah jury awarded more than $5 million to an HR professional who claimed to have experienced harassment, but whose internal complaint was dismissed by an HR executive.
A California jury placed an even steeper fine on insurer Liberty Mutual last December, awarding $103 million to a former employee who alleged the existence of a hostile work environment and age discrimination, among other claims.
Under federal employment laws, a hostile work environment exists when harassment occurs that is so severe or pervasive as to be considered intimidating, hostile or abusive by a reasonable person, according to guidance published by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But courts have previously held that isolated incidents of harassment or discriminatory conduct do not rise to the level of a hostile work environment.
