ILNews

Janitor loses pro se complaint alleging discrimination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals noted that it was a “close call” whether a man worked in a hostile work environment as a school temporary janitor, but judges found that he could not meet his legal burden to prove that he suffered severe or pervasive harassment based on his race.

James Nichols sued the Michigan City Area Schools pro se, alleging two Title VII violations: hostile work environment and that he was fired because  he is African-American. Nichols worked as a temporary janitor at Springfield Elementary and claimed that he was harassed by co-worker Bette Johnston. He alleged she made racial slurs toward him, acted scared of him, and she and other employees tried to bait him into stealing items from an unattended purse.

The school principal spoke with Nichols’ supervisors at the Plant Planning Department about concerns regarding Nichols’ “strange” behavior. The supervisors decided to remove Nichols’ from the school and told him if they had any other work, they would call, but they never did.

The District Court granted Michigan City’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

The 7th Circuit found Nichols’ hostile work environment claim failed because he did not provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that he was subjected to harassing conduct that was severe or pervasive. He argued that Johnston’s alleged “black n----r” comment constituted severe harassment.

“… while referring to colleagues with such disrespectful language is deplorable and has no place in the workforce, one utterance of the n-word has not generally been held to be severe enough to rise to the level of establishing liability,” Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote.

Nichols can only succeed if the totality of the collection of allegedly harassing incidents triggers liability. “While it is a close call whether the conduct here is severe or pervasive, Nichols’ claim ultimately fails,” she wrote.

He never alleged that he was physically threatened and the alleged harassment didn’t interfere with his work performance. Finally, the judges concluded that a reasonable trier of fact couldn’t conclude that all of the allegedly harassing comments were directed at him.

And the judges held his claim that he was fired because of his race fared no better than his harassment claim. They found he did not provide enough evidence to survive summary judgment. Evidence was presented by the school that employees were concerned about his mental state and he acted strangely the day he was fired. In addition, the school was going to fill his job with a full-time janitor the next week, regardless of Nichols’ work performance.

Because he did not meet his legal burden, the 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in James Nichols v. Michigan City Plant Planning Department, Michigan City Area Schools, 13-2893.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT