Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
A Meme, a Minister, and a Judge Who Was Not Amused
Some lawsuits simmer before they boil. This one arrived preheated—with a racist meme, a televangelist plaintiff, and a CEO who mocked him as “Tattoo,” texted a blackface-style image, and said, “Well if I’m your pimp where’s my money? Bring me my money!” When the plaintiff objected, the threats started. The judge didn’t laugh. Now a jury will decide whether this crossed the line from offensive to unlawful.
TL;DR: A Black televangelist sued a religious TV network and its white CEO under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after the CEO showed him a racially offensive meme, texted the same image along with a photo the plaintiff interpreted as blackface, called him “Tattoo,” and allegedly threatened to use “the whip” when he complained. A Michigan federal judge ruled that a jury could reasonably find this behavior created a hostile work environment and amounted to unlawful retaliation.
A Meme, a Nickname, and a Power Trip
In 2019, the white owner of the country’s largest African-American religious TV network showed a longtime Black televangelist a meme. It depicted the executive in a fur coat and top hat, styled like a stereotypical pimp, surrounded by smaller photos of Black pastors—including the plaintiff—wearing white tuxedos.
Later that day, he texted the same meme with the messages: “You look like a midget,” “A tattoo from fantasy island,” and “I didn’t know they made Tuxedos that small.” The plaintiff immediately objected, calling the meme offensive and “equivalent to blackface on a white man.”
The next day, the executive sent another image: a photo of himself standing next to a white man whose face had been scribbled over in black marker—a photo the plaintiff also interpreted as referencing blackface.
When the plaintiff raised further objections, the executive brushed them off. He continued calling him “Tattoo” and replied with texts like “So sensitive” and “WTF.”
Things escalated. During a phone call, the executive said, “Well if I’m your pimp where’s my money? Bring me my money!” He allegedly referred to limiting the plaintiff’s airtime as “the whip.”
And when the plaintiff said he was done, the executive allegedly responded: “I’ll put you in my Rolls-Royce and drive your Black a** over there.”
From Meme to Liability: What the Law Requires
42 U.S.C. § 1981 bars race discrimination in contractual relationships, including independent contractor arrangements. To prevail on a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show racially motivated conduct that was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of the business relationship. For retaliation, the plaintiff must show they objected to discrimination, suffered an adverse action, and that the two were connected.
The judge found enough evidence for both claims to go to trial.
🧯 Hostile Work Environment
The conduct spanned just a few days—but the court emphasized that severity matters as much as duration. The combination of the meme, height-based ridicule, “Tattoo” nickname, a photo the plaintiff viewed as blackface, and racially charged comments—especially given the power imbalance—could amount to “discriminatory humiliation and insults” sufficient to support liability.
🔁 Retaliation
The plaintiff didn’t just raise concerns—he objected clearly and repeatedly. That was protected activity. What followed—mocking texts, threats to reduce airtime, and comments like “use the whip” and “Black a**”—could reasonably be viewed as retaliatory. The court also found enough evidence for a jury to decide whether the plaintiff’s resignation qualified as a constructive discharge, driven by a combination of harassment and retaliation.
Three Employer Takeaways
✅ Impact matters more than intent.
In harassment cases, “just joking” is no defense. What matters is how the conduct affects the target—not how funny the speaker thinks it is.
✅ Harassment plus retaliation can force someone out—and still be actionable.
When racial insults and threats follow a complaint, the pressure may become so intolerable that quitting isn’t really a choice. That’s not just a resignation—it may be a constructive discharge under federal law.
✅ Section 1981 applies outside traditional employment.
Even without a W-2, racially motivated interference in a business relationship can still trigger liability.
Final Word
What some call a joke, a federal court saw as potential racial harassment. And soon, a jury will get to decide who’s right.