Why Two Single-Slur Cases Never Reached a Jury

A single slur can sink an employer. It can also survive summary judgment. Two recent federal decisions show why context — especially who said it and how — still controls.

TL;DR: Two federal courts held that a single use of a slur was not enough to get a hostile work environment claim to a jury under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). In both cases, the courts focused on whether the remark was isolated, whether it came from a supervisor or co-worker, whether it was tied to a threat, and whether it altered the conditions of employment.

📄 Northern District of Illinois decision (Feb. 17, 2026)
📄 Middle District of Pennsylvania decision (Dec. 31, 2025) and reconsideration denial (Jan. 2026)

Illinois: Co-Worker, Secondhand, No Evidence of Work Impact

In the Illinois case, an employee alleged that a co-worker used an anti-gay slur. He did not personally hear the comment; another employee told him about it. The record reflected he was aware of only one instance.

He also described staring, a brief instance of mocking his walk, and being called a “non-factor.”

The court acknowledged that unambiguously derogatory slurs are egregious and can contribute to a hostile work environment. But several contextual facts mattered:

The alleged slur was attributed to a co-worker, not a supervisor.
The plaintiff did not personally hear the remark.
There were no accompanying threats.
The record did not show that the conduct interfered with his work performance.

The employer investigated and, at the plaintiff’s request, moved him away from the co-worker.

Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment.

Pennsylvania: Directed at the Plaintiff, But Isolated and Not “Extreme”

In the Pennsylvania case, a co-worker used a racial slur within earshot of the plaintiff. She reported the comment immediately and explained why it was racist and demeaning.

Management escalated the issue the same day. A supervisor met with both employees and stated there was zero tolerance for the behavior. The summary judgment record reflected no additional reported racist remarks.

The court agreed the word was offensive. The legal question, however, was whether a single incident was “severe or pervasive” enough to change the terms and conditions of employment.

The court explained that while a single incident can be sufficient in rare and extreme circumstances, this case did not meet that standard. It emphasized:

The speaker was a co-worker, not a supervisor.
The comment was not paired with a threat of termination or other job consequence.
The incident was isolated.
The record contained no tangible evidence that the comment interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance after that day or injected ongoing hostility into the workplace.

The court cited Third Circuit precedent recognizing that it is rare for a single incident, without more, to be so extreme that it alone creates a hostile work environment.

The Reconsideration Attempt

After summary judgment was granted, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration. She argued the court was wrong to characterize the case as involving one isolated incident and asserted the slur had been used multiple times.

The court denied the motion. It relied on the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony agreeing that the lawsuit arose from a “singular incident” and stated it could not find record evidence supporting additional uses of the word. With no evidentiary basis to expand the facts, the summary judgment ruling stood.

What Actually Matters in Single-Slur Cases

These decisions reinforce a few recurring themes:

Authority matters. A slur from a supervisor — especially when paired with a threat — carries more legal weight than one from a co-worker.

Direction matters. A comment directed at the plaintiff is more serious than one reported secondhand. But even then, courts still ask whether it altered working conditions.

Impact matters. Courts focus on whether the incident changed the terms and conditions of employment, not simply whether it was offensive.

Bottom Line

No employer should ever treat a slur as minor. But in litigation, courts dissect context:

Who said it?
Was it directed at the plaintiff?
Was there a threat?
Was it repeated?
Did it alter the conditions of employment?

In these two cases, the answers to those questions kept the claims from reaching a jury.