In Montgomery v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO (IBEW) Local 429 & Conti Corporation, No. 3:23-CV-01262, 2025 WL 3188737 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2025), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claims asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
From the decision:
To establish a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) [he] was a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was subjected to unwelcome … harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on [race]; (4) the charged [racial] harassment created a hostile work environment; and (5) the employer is liable.” Schlosser v. VRHabilis, LLC, 113 F.4th 674, 683 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting Randolph v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 453 F.3d 724, 733 (6th Cir. 2006)).
For the fourth element, a hostile work environment occurs “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult … that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). To make this showing, the plaintiff must show that the conduct complained of was objectively “so severe or pervasive as to constitute a hostile or abusive working environment” to a reasonable person and, subjectively perceived as such by the victim. Id. at 687 (citations omitted). “As part of this evaluation, [the court] must consider the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ rather than each event complained of in isolation.” Id. (quoting Randolph, 453 F.3d at 732). Specifically, the court must consider “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it [was] physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfere[d] with an employee’s performance.” Randolph, 453 F.3d at 733 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23). “[S]imple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.”
In this case, the plaintiff testified that he experienced three instances of racist comments while working for Conti, all by Jimmy Allen. (Doc. No. 97-1 at 23–27, Montgomery Dep. 86–89.) The first incident involved an argument between Allen and Montgomery about the role and the history of the KKK, shortly after the plaintiff began working for Conti, with Allen defending the KKK as having “policed bad people and restored order to the South during the Reconstruction era.” (Doc. No. 52 at 2; Doc. No. 97-1 at 26, Montgomery Dep. 89.) Allen was apparently not a supervisor at the time, and the plaintiff did not contemporaneously report the altercation to any Conti supervisor. The second incident did not involve the plaintiff directly. He simply overheard Allen and other Conti employees joke about whipping and beating anyone who voted for liberal politicians and the liberal politicians themselves, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, and Barack Obama. (Doc. No. 52 ¶ 27; Doc. No. 97-1 at 239, Montgomery Dep. 86.) The third instance took place the morning of May 26, 2021, by which time Allen was the foreman for the Federal Courthouse project, which the plaintiff did report to Conti. (See Doc. No. 97-4, at 6.) The plaintiff testified that Allen humiliated him and asked him if he was high on crack in front of other workers and told him to move faster and, more specifically, to run down an unsafe stairway. The plaintiff refused and accused Allen of being racist, based on Allen’s “prior statements” and how Allen treated Montgomery generally. (Doc. No. 52 ¶ 67; Doc. No. 97-1 at 45–46; Montgomery Dep. 162–63.)
The first incident, though Allen’s position was objectively offensive, was not severe. It did not involve physically threatening conduct, and it was an isolated incident. The second incident did not overtly involve race at all; instead, it involved party politics. Although the plaintiff perceived it as race-related, it consisted of offhand comments that were not directed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff subjectively perceived the third incident as race-based as well, but the plaintiff admits that he was the one who brought up the issue of racism, and his perception that it was race-based arose from his prior interactions with Allen and his belief that Allen is racist. Regardless, these three incidents consisted of offensive statements alone, and such incidents did not occur frequently or pervasively.
The court held that, applying the totality of the circumstances test, the three incidents about which the plaintiff complains were objectively not sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to create a hostile work environment.