Holloway v. Ceva Logistics U.S. Inc.
Citation | 619 F.3d 936 |
Decision Date | 30 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 09-3322.,09-3322. |
Parties | Gregory WATSON; Alonzo D. Banks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Lemont Holloway, Plaintiff, v. CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert Lee Ortbals, Jr., argued, Kansas City, MO, Donald S. Prophete, Robert Lee Ortbals, Jr., Nicholas J. Walker, on the brief, for appellee.
Jessica M. Bernard, argued, Kansas City, MO, Robert O. Jester and Matthew J. Gist, on the brief, for appellant.
Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Watson and Alonzo Banks challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. (“CEVA”) on their racially hostile work environment claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Mo. Rev. St. § 213.010, et seq. The district court held that the plaintiffs could not establish that a hostile work environment existed, and even if they had shown the environment to be hostile, CEVA took prompt and effective remedial action. We reverse.
CEVA provides supply-chain management services whereby automobiles are shipped and received by railroad into a railyard operated by the company. Banks began working for CEVA in September 2004; 1 Watson started in May 2006. Both are African-American. They each held a variety of jobs at CEVA, and at one point worked together as members of a “shuttle” crew, as discussed below. They are also union members of Teamsters Local No. 141.
The plaintiffs' claims are similar in several respects, and we set forth the types of incidents they both cite as contributing to a racially hostile work environment:
locker room, a room visited by virtually all employees on a daily basis. Banks's testimony indicates the carvings were present for months and possibly years. Banks complained to three supervisors throughout 2006, including Todd Cox and Kelne. Watson noticed the carvings for the first time in November 2006 and also complained to Kelne. The plaintiffs also stated that management frequented the area and that the workbench was located close to a manager's locker. Management took no action in response to the multiple complaints until Banks filed an EEOC complaint. Shortly after the EEOC complaint was filed, the carvings were sanded over. Banks also observed “KKK” carved into lockers and complained to management.
Confederate flag at CEVA, mostly on items of clothing, and attested that it occurred in front of management. Buckley wore a headband and displayed a tattoo with the flag. Banks testified that he reported the headband to management, from whom he received no response. In 2006, Watson also complained to Kelne about Buckley's tattoo. According to CEVA, Cowens became aware of the tattoo and Buckley was instructed to cover it. Watson also saw co-worker Steven Alexander wear garments displaying the flag that year. There is no evidence Watson complained about Alexander.
Both testified that they observed additional unidentified individuals wearing garments with offensive emblems. Watson saw one individual wearing a shirt with a Confederate flag and overheard another employee complaining about it. Banks saw employees whom he did not know from a different shift wearing shirts with a swastika on them. Banks complained about these individuals to supervisors, including Kelne, who did not respond.
• False accusations of safety violations and co-workers creating dangerous situations: Watson and Banks worked together from July 2006 to January 2007 on the shuttle crew, which consisted solely of Watson, Banks, and one other African-American employee. During this period, white co-workers, some of whom engaged in other racist behavior, as well as supervisor Kelne, made false accusations of safety violations over the radio that could be heard by management. If believed, the accusations could have been grounds for termination. At his deposition, Watson specified that in late 2006 or early 2007 Terri Anderson falsely accused him of throwing a switch in front of a train the wrong way. In mid-2007, Lynn Anderson accused him of the same mistake. Watson further testified that other employees also accused the shuttle crew of failing to tie down hand breaks on railcars and inspecting rail cars incorrectly. Banks testified that Kelne falsely accused him of being in the “red zone,” apparently meaning he was at an unsafe distance from the trains.
The plaintiffs also cite various verbal slurs, comments, and other instances of harassment directed at them or other African-American employees. We discuss the plaintiffs's alleged instances of harassment separately. According to Watson, he experienced the following slurs:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. UPS Ground Freight
...Trussville terminal wearing shirts or hats bearing Confederate flags. See Ellis, 650 F.3d at 648 (citing Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 619 F.3d 936, 938–39 & n. 2 (8th Cir.2010)) (“[W]e agree that displays of confederate flags in the workplace may support a hostile work environment c......
-
Hysjulien v. Hill Top Home of Comfort, Inc.
...when the “neutral occurrences” were improperly motivated and part of a pattern of harassment. See, e.g., Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 619 F.3d 936, 942–44 (8th Cir.2010) (same employees were involved in both “overtly racial incidents as well as incidents that were facially neutral,”......
-
Ellis v. Cca of Tenn. Llc
...that displays of confederate flags in the workplace may support a hostile work environment claim. See Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 619 F.3d 936, 938–39 & n. 2 (8th Cir.2010). Nonetheless, in situating plaintiffs' allegations among the case-law guideposts, their limited number of cla......
-
Ellis v. Houston
...or hostile work environment claims under Title VII and § 1981 are analyzed under the same standards. Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 619 F.3d 936, 941 (8th Cir. 2010). "[A] plaintiff must show that he or she is a member of a protected group, that there was 'unwelcome harassment,' that ......