Employee’s Failure to Report Renewed Harassment Fatal to Racial Harassment Claim
1 min read
May 18, 2011
A black employee claimed that two of his co-workers started taunting him with racial epithets soon after he was hired. In accordance with the company’s anti-harassment policy, the employee complained to the company owner. The company owner immediately berated the two co-workers and warned that further harassing incidents would result in immediate termination. One of the co-workers continued to use racial epithets. The employee then complained to another worker, but never reported the later incidents to the owner. The employee sued, alleging that the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), for failing to address his co-workers’ continued use of racial epithets. The employee argued that the employer was liable for two distinct failings: (1) inadequate discipline following the initial harassment; and (2) failure to address the later harassment—of which the employer had notice through the employee’s complaints to the other worker. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the employee’s arguments and held that “when co-workers, rather than supervisors, are responsible for the creation and perpetuation of a hostile work environment . . . an employer can only be liable if the harassment is causally connected to some negligence on the employer’s part.” The court ruled that the employer’s response to the initial harassment was “swift and appropriate” and that the employee’s failure to report to the company owner, as ordered, was “fatal to his claim of employer liability.” Employers should adopt an anti-harassment policy that makes clear whom the employee must notify about harassing incidents. By ensuring a swift and initial response to harassment, and a clear directive as to whom employees must notify of current and further harassing incidents, employers will be able to defend against any subsequently filed lawsuit.
Wilson v. Moulison N. Corp., Case No. 10-1387 (1st Cir. Mar. 21, 2011)
Topics
Featured Insights

Employment Law Observer
Aug 10, 2026
As Leaves Fall, Leave Requests Rise: Are You Compliant With Chicago’s Expanded Rules?

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

