White Worker Gets Trial for Harassment from Being Called "Redneck/Hillbilly"

We all know that there are certain "buzz words" that often lead to harassment issues and problems.  Most of the buzz words are those used in harassment cases brought by minorities and females.  In a recent Georgia case, however, a white employee brought a harassment/retaliation case because of such a buzz word allegedly used against white employees.  Bland v. Sam's East, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-190 (M.D. Ga. 2019). 

Sam's Club (a subsidiary of Walmart) terminated a white employee for being rude to an assistant manager.  The employee had previously reported that an African-American co-worker called him a "dumb redneck/hillbilly."  While no disciplinary action was taken against the African-American worker, the white worker approached the manager and told him that he would have been fired immediately if he had used the "N" word during his confrontation with the African-American worker. 

The district court judge rejected the contention that the white worker couldn't have reasonably believed his complaint of race-based favoritism towards the African-American amounted to protected activity under Title VII.  Although Sam's got summary judgment on the white worker's claim that his discharge was motivated by his race, a federal judge ordered a trial on the issue whether the white worker was the victim of retaliation for complaining about racial harassment. 

Editor's Note: This case is another example of why employers should take harassment complaints very seriously.  The author remembers his own experience trying a case in which a male employee in a virtually all-female sewing plant complained he was being sexually harassed by his female supervisor, who was older and quite attractive, but the plant management viewed the incident so lightly nothing was done.  When the male employee was later laid off in a reduction of force, he brought a lawsuit for retaliation claiming that his layoff was motivated by his complaints of sexual harassment.  The suit was brought against both the company and the female supervisor.  Although the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, no damages were awarded against the company because the plaintiff had immediately found another job.  There was an award against the female supervisor, however, of $1.00 (you read that right).  The author was considered a hero since no monetary liability was found against the company or the supervisor, but later the plaintiff's attorney recovered her attorney's fees for getting a plaintiff's verdict from the jury.