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

Event
Mar 3 – 5, 2026
25th Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management (LMRM) Conference

Press Release
Feb 13, 2026
Hinshaw Team Wins Appeal in Criminal Indictment of Waukegan City Clerk Janet Kilkelly

Press Release
Feb 10, 2026
Hinshaw Trial Team Secures $0 Defense Verdict in $15 Million Auto Accident Trial

Press Release
Feb 4, 2026
Hinshaw Celebrates 17 Consecutive Years of Being Named an Equality 100 Award Winner

Press Release
Feb 5, 2026
Hinshaw Legal Team Secures Directed Verdict in Florida Equine Fraud Case

Press Release
Feb 2, 2026
Hinshaw Welcomes 16 Attorneys in Seven Offices and Announces Opening of a Cleveland Office

Press Release
Jan 20, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the LCLD 2026 Fellowship Class and 2026 Pathfinder Program

Press Release
Jan 15, 2026
Hinshaw Client Secures a Complete Jury Verdict in Fraudulent Misrepresentation Horse Sale Case

Press Release
Jan 6, 2026
Hinshaw Adds Four-Member Consumer Financial Services Team in DC and Florida



