Hostile work environment? There was a lot of hoopla over Draymond Green\u2019s use of the word \u201cB___\u201d during his confrontation with LeBron James in Game 4 of the NBA Finals.\u00a0 Green was suspended from Game 5 of the series because he had amassed his fourth flagrant foul point of the postseason, which mandates a one-game ban. \u00a0The reported exchange between Green and LeBron that triggered the altercation went like this: James said he was the father of three kids and a man.\u00a0 Green responded by telling James that \u201cYou\u2019re still a b___.: Green\u2019s comment agitated James.<\/p>\n
James commented on the incident at the post-game press conference: \u201cDraymond just said something that I don\u2019t agree with. I\u2019m all cool with the competition. I\u2019m all fine with that, but some of the words that came out of his mouth were a little bit overboard. Being a guy with pride, a guy with three kids and a family, things of that nature, some things just go overboard, and that\u2019s where he took it, and that was it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Cavs went on to win Game 5 of the series in Green\u2019s absence. Naturally, this story has caused a lot of buzz and debate.\u00a0 Even Ayesha Curry, the wife of Warriors star Steph Curry, could not resist sharing her opinion about the LeBron-Green altercation.<\/p>\n
Trash-talking has long been a part of the NBA and other professional sports.\u00a0 Michael Jordan is notorious for his trash-talking as well as tennis great John McEnroe, who believes professional tennis could actually benefit from more trash-talking between players.\u00a0 There does not seem to be any consensus as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable when it comes to trash-talking in sports.<\/p>\n
Determining whether a particular slur crosses the line is not an issue limited to sports.\u00a0 In the employment arena, alleged slurs often are the central allegation of discrimination claims, especially claims alleging a racially or sexually hostile work environment.\u00a0 Specifically, courts are often forced to decide whether a particular comment or comments can establish a hostile environment claim.<\/p>\n
To establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must show: As a general matter, a singular slur will not be sufficient to establish a hostile environment.\u00a0 Even a series of comments may not be enough to establish such a claim.\u00a0 The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower courts\u2019 dismissal of a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by an African-American train conductor against CSX Transportation, Inc (\u201cCSXT\u201d). CORNELIUS MAHONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee.<\/u>, No. 15-12821, 2016 WL 3230678, at *1 (11th Cir. June 13, 2016).\u00a0In that case, the employee claimed that his coworkers’ use of the term \u201chomeboy\u201d was sufficient to create a hostile work environment. \u00a0The Court disagreed and provided the following analysis:<\/p>\n \u201c[W]e consider \u2018the totality of the circumstances\u2019 including the following factors: the frequency of the conduct, the severity of the conduct, whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance, and whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee’s job performance. We must keep in mind that neither Title VII nor \u00a7 1981 is a \u2018general civility code\u2019 that makes actionable ordinary workplace \u2018tribulations.\u2019 \u2018[S]imple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.\u2019 [citations omitted].<\/p>\n The court went on to conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, a single incident in which a coworker used a racially-charged word during a staff-meeting, that was not physically threatening or humiliating, and did not cause the plaintiff to suffer an adverse employment action was not sufficient to establish a claim.<\/p>\n This decision is consistent with prior Eleventh Circuit decisions that have held that even more egregious alleged statements did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment.<\/p>\n Draymond Green is upset that he was suspended for Game 5, because of his antics on the court. Perhaps he can take a little solace in the fact that he would have beaten James in court if Green\u2019s use of the \u201cb__\u201d word was alleged to have created a hostile environment.<\/p>\n
(1) that he belongs to a protected group;
(2) that he has been subject to unwelcome\u00a0harassment<\/strong>;
(3) that the\u00a0harassment<\/strong>\u00a0must have been based on a protected characteristic of the employee, such as national origin;
(4) that the\u00a0harassment<\/strong>\u00a0was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and
(5) that the employer is responsible for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability. \u00a0
There is a also a threshold level that must be met:\u00a0 to sustain a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must prove that 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.<\/p>\n