In Peña et al v. Clark County, Case No. 3:21-cv-05411-DGE, 2023 WL 3160157 (W.D.Wash. April 28, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
The County argues Plaintiffs lack evidence to establish a hostile work environment because Waggoner’s conduct was not racially motivated and was not objectively hostile, and because Plaintiffs “cite various isolated instances where they either disagreed with an operation decision or felt offended because Waggoner seemed angry at them[.]” (Dkt. No. 56 at 6.) The County’s argument fails to account for the severe and pervasive racial harassment experienced by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs testify to multiple racial insults implying Latinos should not have been employed by the County: Harris saying he tried to harm Mexican workers at prior work sites as they did not belong, Eiesland saying he was building a wall to kick Mexican people out, May saying he was working to “cut out cancers” like Hutson and Alanis, and Kujava saying it was a good Trump was “kicking out Mexican” people. Several of these comments were threatening— Harris implied he would harm Hutson as he did prior Mexican coworkers and May stated people at the County were not “untouchable.” Less severe racial harassment was pervasive. Peña testified he heard coworkers say, “there goes Manuel labor” or “here comes the landscaping crew” when referring to him, Alanis, and Hutson. Hutson testified, beginning round 2019, crew chiefs, including Crew Chief May called Plaintiffs’ crew the “Manuel labor crew, the brown crew, [or] the landscaping crew.” Based on this evidence, Plaintiffs have clearly raised a dispute of material fact from which a reasonable jury could conclude Plaintiffs’ work environment to be both subjectively and objectively hostile such that it effected the terms and conditions of their employment.
The court further held that plaintiff raised an issue on the issue of whether the conduct should be imputed to the defendant, concluding that “[a] reasonable jury could find the County knew of the anti-Latino remarks and insults made by Plaintiffs’ coworkers but failed to take reasonable corrective action.”