N-word + noose = jury trial

In the nine months that Tyrone Rembert worked as a temporary employee at Swagelok Company, he claims he was subjected to the following:

• The routine use of the N-word, including his two white supervisors directing it towards him at least 50 times.
• A coworker holding up a noose fashioned out of hose pipe and saying, "This is what we do around here."
  
• A supervisor telling him, "I see you have your black face on today."
• Repeated threats of violence, including a group of white employees telling him, "There are enough of us to take you down," and "You better pray."

Rembert claims that he complained to his supervisor, Brett Kaiser, 14-17 times with no response or action. (Kaiser claims that Rembert never made any complaints, and if he had Kaiser would have advised HR). According to Rembert, the harassment was so bad that he ate lunch in his car to avoid his coworkers and was hospitalized for high blood pressure and received psychotherapy to help handle the stress of the harassment.

Ultimately, Swagelok declined Rembert's application for a full-time position following the discovery of a domestic violence conviction. Rembert then sued for racial harassment, race discrimination, and retaliation. The district court dismissed all of his claims on summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the race-discrimination claim based on his domestic violence conviction and the retaliation claim based on the fact the Kaiser played no role whatsoever in the decision not to offer Rembert a full-time position.

The racial harassment claim, however, is another story altogether.

Rembert has presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the harassment was severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find the work environment hostile. Rembert testified that his supervisors and coworkers used the N-word routinely and that one coworker threatened him with a noose. If a jury were to credit the testimony about the N-word alone, it could reasonably conclude that Rembert was subject to severe or pervasive harassment. Additionally, a jury could conclude that in light of these comments, a coworker holding up a noose and telling Rembert "this is what we do here" was a physical threat.

Seems like a pretty easy call to me.