Robert Collier v. Dallas County Hospital: What is Enough?

Apr 21

Robert Collier, a former operating room aide at the Parkland Memorial hospital in Texas, was subjected to a demeaning, racist, and hostile workplace. However, despite his egregious treatment, when presented with this case, the Fifth Circuit did not deem his treatment to be a violation of Title VII.[1] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, and religion.[2] Discrimination claims under Title VII require proof that harassment is “sufficiently severe or pervasive” in order for the statute to be upheld; one “extremely serious” incident could qualify, but not a “mere offensive utterance.”[3] This case exhibits how the Fifth Circuit failed to understand the severity of the bigotry Collier faced in his workplace and marked his exposure to racial epithets as “mere utterances.”[4] This poses the question: if Collier’s discrimination is not a violation of Title VII, then what is?

Robert Collier brought his case to the Fifth Circuit on September 30, 2020, with the hope that Parkland Hospital would be held accountable for the discriminatory treatment he endured. As an employee at Parkland hospital, Collier was exposed to the N-word scratched into the employee elevator, swastikas painted on the wall of a storage room, and being called “boy” by a white nurse.[5] Collier initially brought these concerns to his employer, but they were not addressed for 18 months.[6] After this inadequate response to his complaints, Collier filed a Title VII suit against Dallas County Hospital District. During the trial, Collier contended that he “was denied compensatory opportunities by a discriminatory supervisor who heavily favored White and Hispanic workers and discriminated against Black workers,” and that his persistent complaints to Human Resources were overlooked on the basis of race.[7] The Fifth Circuit took a “cramped” view of the law, claiming his exposure to the graffiti was a “mere utterance”, and failed to account for the impact of the harassment Collier faced.[8] Collier appealed this judgement, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2021.[9] When analyzing this case this article will, first, address why the Fifth Circuit did not uphold Title VII in Collier’s case, and, second, argue why Title VII is, in fact, applicable.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision to dismiss Collier is partially due to the discrepancies between The U.S. Courts of Appeals’ rulings of what constitutes a violation of Title VII. The Third and Fourth Circuits have ruled that one use of the N-word, or a similarly offensive slur, is enough to be a violation of Title VII.[10] However, the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have ruled that a single “utterance” is not enough.[11] Black workers in the Fifth Circuit often face “steeper legal hurdles'' and worse workplace discrimination protections compared to those in other circuits.[12] The Fifth Circuit has held hostile environment claims based on racial epithets only if they have lasted for years, but Black workers should not have to endure more than one instance of racial discrimination in their place of work. In deciding Collier v. Dallas County Hospital District (2020),[13] the Fifth Circuit determined the employer was not “sufficiently abusive to constitute a hostile working environment.”[14] I would argue that, as many circuit courts have held, a single instance of discrimination is enough for an employee to feel threatened—even more so if that instance is graffitied on a wall they have to see every day at work.

Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has not considered the immense effect of the graffiti in Robert Collier’s case. Title VII states severe and pervasive discrimination violates the statute, but clearly, the Fifth Circuit Court did not interpret this instance as a violation of Title VII. I would argue that this is a failure by the court, as the graffiti, in this case, is evidently severe and pervasive. One word could be considered a “mere utterance,”[15] but not when that word is so deeply rooted in trauma. Moreover, it was not just said once; it was scratched into a wall that Collier had to see every day on his way to lunch. "[T]he key difference between graffiti and a racial slur should not be overlooked: the slur is heard once and vanishes in an instant, while graffiti remains visible until the employer acts to remove it,"[16] the Collier court said, quoting Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., (2010).[17] Rather than observe it once, he is reminded of the word repeatedly, in a violent and pervasive manner. If the pain of seeing the N-word every day in Collier’s workplace is not accepted by the Fifth Circuit as a “prolonged pattern”, then the circuit has failed Collier, and many before him, in upholding Title VII.[18]

It is difficult to truly understand the pervasiveness and traumatizing nature of the racial epithets Collier was exposed to, as Andrew Hacker, a prominent political scientist, stated, the N-word “stands alone with its power to tear at one’s insides.”[19] The Fifth Circuit was clearly not considering the harmful effects of such exposure. In filing the Amicus Brief to the Supreme court, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund wrote, “This repeated and extended exposure to racial slurs significantly affected Mr. Collier, leaving him with the sense that those responsible for ensuring a work environment free of racial abuse and harassment could not be bothered to paint over racist graffiti.”[20] In the Fifth Circuit’s view, Collier’s complaints were not “physically threatening” and “did not unreasonably interfere with his work performance.”[21] However, it has been shown through research by Kerri Lynn Stone, in her book Decoding Civility, that mental health and productivity in the workplace are all threatened by discriminatory speech.[22] Furthermore, “when used by white people, the N-word inflicts profound emotional and psychological harm on Black people because it ‘evok[es] a history of racial violence, brutality, and subordination.’ McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp. (2004).”[23]

Finally, it is important to add that the treatment of Robert Collier is a result of the systemic racism that seeps into all facets of life including the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t protect Robert Collier from workplace discrimination, just like it didn’t protect Martin Dailey from being called a “black little motherf----r” by his supervisor in Dailey v. ShinTech Inc. (2014),[24] or Dennis D. Vaughn being called “n*****”, “c**n”, and “black boy” by his coworkers and supervisors in Vaughn v. Pool Offshore Co. (1982),[25] or those discriminated against in White v. GEICO (2018),[26] Johnson v. TCB Const. Co. (2009),[27] Anthony v. Galveston County (2014),[28] and more. The treatment of Black employees is not “obnoxious treatment” nor “hazing and practical joking;” it is deeply destructive, and being exposed to this treatment, even just once, is enough to feel threatened in the workplace.[29] The Fifth Circuit has ruled that the use of racial epithets such as the N-word does not constitute as “heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability of minority group workers,”[30] but if the use of a degrading, disgusting, racist, word is not enough, then our justice system is not enough. If Title VII can’t protect a Black man from continuous exposure to racial epithets, then it must be revisited to avoid the narrowed views of the US Court of Appeals.