One racial slur. One termination. Zero liability. The Third Circuit’s newest hostile work environment decision is a masterclass in what prompt employer action actually looks like.
TL;DR: A Black factory worker claimed his employer subjected him to a racially hostile work environment after a coworker used the n-word while talking to other employees about him. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the single incident — combined with the employer’s swift termination of the offending coworker — did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment required under Title VII and Section 1981. The disparate-treatment and retaliation claims also failed.
A Slur, a Firing, and a Lawsuit
The plaintiff, a Black man, worked the night shift at a packaging factory near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. In the spring of 2020, a day-shift coworker used the n-word while talking to another employee about the plaintiff. The plaintiff wasn’t there — he heard about it later. He complained. The company suspended the offending coworker and fired him within a week.
Then, in May 2021, the plaintiff accumulated ten-and-a-half attendance points under the company’s policy that allows termination at nine. Five days later, the company fired him for it. He sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. The Third Circuit affirmed.
Why One Incident — Even That One — Wasn’t Enough
The employer fired the offending coworker within a week of the complaint. That was the ballgame. When an employer responds promptly and the harassment stops, there’s no liability — and that’s exactly what happened here.
The court also compared the facts to a prior decision where a supervisor used the n-word directly in front of minority workers while threatening to fire them. That’s the scenario where the Third Circuit has found a single slur severe enough to support a hostile work environment claim. This case wasn’t close. The coworker who used the slur wasn’t a supervisor. The plaintiff wasn’t even present when it was said — he heard about it afterward. There were no threats. And a swastika scratched into a bathroom wall beneath a curse aimed at the company, not any minority group, didn’t move the needle — particularly since the plaintiff never complained about it.
One-and-a-half incidents, the court said, are hardly pervasive.
The Attendance Policy Held Up Too
On the disparate treatment claim, the plaintiff argued his firing was pretextual. The court wasn’t persuaded. He didn’t dispute that each absence and late arrival that generated attendance points actually occurred. He pointed to other employees who received leniency on attendance points, but some of those employees were the same race as him — undermining any inference of racial motive. He also offered videos of cars parked in handicapped spots without evidence about the drivers’ races, whether they were asked to move, or whether they were disciplined. That’s not pretext evidence. That’s speculation.
The retaliation claim failed on timing. The plaintiff’s two complaints about race discrimination came more than a year before his suspension and firing. The court cited circuit precedent holding that even a three-month gap, without more, can’t create an inference of causation. A year-plus gap with no evidence of intervening antagonism didn’t come close.
What Employers Should Take From This
This outcome didn’t happen by accident. The employer acted fast, documented everything, and enforced its attendance policy without exceptions it couldn’t explain.
- Respond immediately to harassment complaints. Investigate promptly and act decisively. The employer here suspended the offending coworker while it investigated, then fired him within a week of the complaint. Suspension isn’t the only option, but removing the offender from the workplace while you sort things out is a reasonable first step — and the speed of the ultimate response was what ended the hostile work environment analysis.
- Document every attendance point. The plaintiff couldn’t dispute that he was actually absent or late every time he earned a point. That’s the paper trail that wins at summary judgment.
- Apply your policies uniformly. The plaintiff pointed to employees who got leniency on attendance — but some of those employees were the same race as him. Inconsistent enforcement creates pretext arguments. Consistent enforcement kills them.
The n-word in the workplace is never a minor incident. But how an employer responds to it determines liability — and this employer’s response left nothing for a court to grab onto.