Justices Consider Hearing a Case on ‘Most Offensive Word’

May 13, 2021by Jessica Gresko, Associated Press
Justices Consider Hearing a Case on ‘Most Offensive Word’
In this Jan. 22, 2020, file photo, night falls on the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court is considering whether to hear the case of a Black man who says he suffered discrimination because the N-word was carved into the wall of the hospital elevator where he worked. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Collier says that during the seven years he worked as an operating room aide at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, white nurses called him and other Black employees “boy.” Management ignored two large swastikas painted on a storage room wall. And for six months, he regularly rode an elevator with the N-word carved into a wall.

Collier ultimately sued the hospital, but lower courts dismissed his case. Now, however, at a private conference Thursday, the Supreme Court will consider for the first time whether to hear his case. Focusing on the elevator graffiti, Collier is asking the justices to decide whether a single use of the N-word in the workplace can create a hostile work environment, giving an employee the ability to pursue a case under Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Already, the court’s two newest members, both appointed by President Donald Trump, are on record with seemingly different views. The case is also a test of whether the justices are willing to wade into the ongoing, complex conversations about race happening nationwide. The public could learn as soon as Monday whether the court will take Collier’s case.

Jennifer A. Holmes, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has urged the court to take the case, says she hopes the conversations taking place nationally will push the justices in that direction.

Doing so gives the court an “opportunity to show that they’re not insensitive to issues of race,” Holmes said. And courts are “all the time” confronting workplace discrimination claims involving use of the N-word, she said. The question for the justices, she said, is just whether someone who experiences an isolated instance of the N-word can “advance their case beyond the beginning stage.”

Two of the court’s nine justices have experience with similar cases. 

In 2019, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion for a panel of three judges who unanimously ruled against a Black man who sued over alleged discrimination and had his case dismissed at an early stage. Among other things, he claimed a former supervisor at the Illinois Department of Transportation called him the N-word.

“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” she wrote. But she said previous cases have made clear that an employee can’t win his case “simply by proving that the word was uttered.” He also must prove that “use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.”

Barrett’s colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, has said he sees things differently.

In 2013, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh was a part of a three-judge panel including now-Attorney General Merrick Garland that sided with a Black former Fannie Mae employee who sued alleging racial discrimination. The judges ruled  that the man, who said he was called the N-word by a supervisor, shouldn’t have had his case dismissed at an early stage. 

Kavanaugh wrote separately about “probably the most offensive word in English.” His view, he said, is that the word’s use in the workplace by a supervisor “suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment.”

The Supreme Court itself has yet to squarely address the issue. The justices have said that the “mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet” doesn’t allow a person to sue under the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII. But in a 1998 case, the court suggested that a single, “extremely serious” incident could.

The hospital’s lawyers, for their part, have urged the court not to take Collier’s case. Parkland, the hospital where President John F. Kennedy was taken in 1963 after he was fatally shot, says the case’s “factual record … is neither strong nor clear.” And Collier himself previously said that the racial graffiti he saw “had no appreciable effect on his job performance.”

In a statement to The Associated Press, hospital spokesman Michael Malaise noted that there is no evidence “that any Parkland employee was responsible for the alleged graffiti or that it was directed specifically at Mr. Collier.” Over 70% of hospital staff members self-identify as minorities and the hospital’s “diversity is one of our strongest assets,” he said.

Collier was fired by the hospital in 2016 after a conflict with a supervisor. He brought his lawsuit after he was fired. His attorney, Georgetown law professor Brian Wolfman, declined an interview request on his client’s behalf. During a 2018 deposition, however, Collier talked about how seeing the elevator graffiti made him feel.

“I would say it was something I noticed and complained about,” Collier said. “And that every time I would have to catch that elevator by not seeing anything done about it … it was upsetting … Because I would have wanted to see it gone away pretty much instantly.”

A+
a-
  • Justices
  • NAACP
  • offensive words
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    June 6, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Says Secular Nonprofit Organizations Can Receive Religious Tax Exemptions

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a religious charitable foundation can opt out of paying taxes for unemployment... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a religious charitable foundation can opt out of paying taxes for unemployment compensation in a decision that threatens to revamp part of the federal-state insurance program. Unemployment compensation provides financial benefits to workers who lose their jobs through... Read More

    June 3, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Lets Bans Stand on Semi-Automatic Weapons

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a ban on assault weapons but avoided a detailed explanation of the... Read More

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a ban on assault weapons but avoided a detailed explanation of the constitutional issues involved. The dispute arose from a Maryland law that bans weapons like the AR-15, whose high muzzle bullet speed and easy accessibility at gun... Read More

    June 2, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Justices Agree to Hear Soldier’s Injury Claims Against Fluor

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a veteran’s lawsuit against defense contractor Fluor Corp., over injuries... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a veteran’s lawsuit against defense contractor Fluor Corp., over injuries he sustained in a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan. As recounted in his petition to the high court, former U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely was just... Read More

    What Cases Are Left on the Supreme Court's Emergency Docket? Here's a Look

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The sequence of events is familiar: A lower court judge blocks a part of President Donald Trump’s... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The sequence of events is familiar: A lower court judge blocks a part of President Donald Trump’s agenda, an appellate panel refuses to put the order on hold while the case continues and the Justice Department turns to the Supreme Court. Trump administration lawyers... Read More

    May 30, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Justices Say Trump Can Revoke Legal Protections for 500K+ Immigrants

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Friday that the Trump administration can revoke temporary legal protections bestowed by President Biden... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Friday that the Trump administration can revoke temporary legal protections bestowed by President Biden on more than 500,000 immigrants from four Latin American and Caribbean countries. As is their custom in cases where an emergency action has been requested of... Read More

    May 29, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Justices Narrow Scope of Environmental Review for Infrastructure Projects

    WASHINGTON — A nearly unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of environmental review required under the National Environmental... Read More

    WASHINGTON — A nearly unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act, holding the act does not require agencies to consider certain upstream or downstream impacts of the projects. At issue was a proposal by seven... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top