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

Insights for Employers Alert
Jun 9, 2026
A Win for Employers: Federal District Court Finds $100,000 H-1B Visa Petition Fee is Unlawful

Press Release
Jun 9, 2026
Calvin Edwards Honored With 2026 Rising Star Award by the Black Men Lawyers’ Association

Webinar
Jun 9, 2026
John DeLascio Speaks on How Social Inflation is Reshaping Insurance Risk

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jun 8, 2026
Court Distinguishes Between Clickwrap and Browsewrap Arbitration Agreements

Webinar
Jun 8, 2026
Aimee Delaney and Jason Oliveri Speak on Workplace Generative AI Usage

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jun 8, 2026
New York’s Sweeping Motor Vehicle Tort Law Reforms: More Than Meets the Eye

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jun 5, 2026
AI Governance Expectations on the Rise for Insurers Amid New Regulatory Activity

Press Release
Jun 4, 2026
Hinshaw Recognized Nationally in 2026 Chambers USA Directory

In The News
Jun 3, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions Handbook on IICLE Podcast



