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

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers



