Do employees have a right to use slurs about their own group at work? A court called that absurd.

What if a Black employee uses the N-word in the workplace, directed at no one in particular, and gets fired? Can that employee claim race discrimination under Title VII? A federal judge in Pennsylvania just called that argument “an absurdity.”

---

TL;DR: A Black employee fired for using the N-word claimed race discrimination, arguing that his use was “cultural” and not grounds for termination. The court disagreed. It held that an employer may lawfully discipline any employee for using racial slurs if the rule is enforced consistently across races.

🔗 Read the opinion (E.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 2025)

---

The case that asked who gets to say what

An African American employee admitted using the N-word twice at work after a frustrating interaction. The employer investigated, confirmed the conduct, and discharged him under its workplace conduct rules.

He sued under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, arguing the handbook language was ambiguous and that context should shield him.

The court acknowledged the “difficult societal question” about who can say which words in a workplace but emphasized it would not act as a super-personnel department or treat this employee’s own use of the word as protected activity.

The court’s message was clear

• Using the N-word, by anyone, is not protected activity.

• Employers may enforce a neutral workplace conduct rule that prohibits slurs when applied consistently.

• Consistency defeats bias claims.

Discovery showed that multiple employees of different races had been terminated for confirmed use of the same word, and three other employees, all Black, received final written warnings. That record defeated any inference that the rule was applied based on race rather than conduct.

What this means for employers

1) Consistency is your best defense.
If you prohibit slurs, apply the rule evenly. A documented track record of consistent enforcement carried the day.

2) Context does not excuse workplace language.
Self-referential or “cultural” usage still violates a neutral conduct rule.

3) Document your enforcement history.
Maintain a simple log of prior, similar cases across locations. This helps show policy enforcement, not discrimination.

4) Train, communicate, and investigate.
Written conduct standards, periodic training, and prompt investigations help ensure fair, even-handed outcomes.

5) Retaliation claims still require protected activity.
The court rejected retaliation here because the employee engaged in no protected activity, so timing alone could not save the claim.

The bottom line

Courts will not parse linguistic nuance where employers consistently enforce neutral conduct rules. If you apply your policy the same way to everyone, discipline for using a slur, even within the same protected group, does not violate federal or state discrimination laws.