Tenth Circuit Finds that Corporations Cannot Suffer From A Hostile Work Environment
1 min read
Mar 1, 2013
A cleaning company owned by two white women had a cleaning contract with a city airport. Throughout the period of the contract, the cleaning company’s owners and employees worked with a contract-compliance technician at the airport to arrange for cleaning services. According to the owners of the cleaning company, the technician, an African American male, made discriminatory comments regarding the owners’ gender and race and made the work environment miserable for their employees. When the owners of the cleaning company complained that the airport staff was not treating them well and that the airport was discriminating against the company, the airport terminated the contract. Thereafter, the cleaning company sued the airport and the technician alleging gender and race-based discrimination and a violation of its constitutional rights.
The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the airport, but allowed the suit against the individual technician to proceed, finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the technician was motivated by racial and gender bias and whether the technician “created a hostile work environment vis-à-vis the plaintiff by acting in such a way as to make plaintiff’s contract unprofitable and its owners miserable.” The 10th Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling as to the cleaning company’s hostile work environment claim against the technician. It held that the technician was entitled to qualified immunity on such a claim because an artificial entity could not prevail on a hostile-work-environment claim. The court noted that because such a claim has a subjective, as well as an objective, component, which presupposes feelings or thoughts, it was unlikely an artificial entity could succeed on such a claim.
This decision shows that while hostile work environmental claims can be made by individual employees, it is unlikely such claim will succeed when brought in the name of the corporation. For more information read Allstate Sweeping v. Calvin Black.
Featured Insights

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

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology
