Dive Brief:
- A U.S. district judge ordered Bell Textron Inc. to face claims the aerospace manufacturer exposed a Black employee to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment and then retaliated against him for reporting the events, according to court documents filed July 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (McWilson v. Bell Textron Inc.).
- The worker, a turning machine operator, alleged Bell Textron fired him a month after he and another worker reported to human resources that a co-worker “began making monkey sounds and pounding his chest in an effort to emulate the behavior of an ape” while the plaintiff walked by him, per court documents. The employee said working in the “abusive environment” forced him “to alter his route to work, change his parking routine, and avoid [the co-worker] altogether — thereby altering the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment,” per court documents.
- The worker alleges Bell Textron ignored the behavior and fired him “barely a month later,” the order by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman reads. “Consequently, [the worker]’s termination so close to his complaint is plausible to suggest his termination resulted from his complaint to Defendant — at least at the motion to dismiss stage.” Bell Textron declined a request for comment.
Dive Insight:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says employers can’t discriminate against individuals in any aspect of employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The statute also prohibits retaliation against employees for participating in a complaint process, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Retaliation cases — in which victims, co-workers or even human resources professionals report cases of harassment or discrimination — are a relatively active area of labor law.
Last week, for example, millwork and cabinetry company Third Bench Holdings agreed to pay $165,000 to settle EEOC allegations that it retaliated against three employees, one of whom was an HR manager, for reporting discrimination and harassment.
Last month, San Francisco Bay Area construction contractor Superior Automatic Sprinkler Co. agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging it retaliated against a transgender worker by reassigning him to other job sites after he reported harassment.
And just one day earlier, Pennsylvania-based construction company Pro Pallet agreed to pay $50,000 to settle EEOC allegations that it retaliated against a human resources manager for investigating sexual harassment complaints against the company’s general manager. The company allegedly chastised the HR manager for investigating the complaint; reassigned major parts of her job to others; and excluded her from company meetings.
