## Facts

- Robert Lopez, a Hispanic employee, worked for Union Tank Car Co. in its drafting department for more than 18 years before his termination.
- Lopez had suffered from polio and later medical complications that affected him physically; co-workers sometimes mocked him for his condition.
- Lopez testified that employees repeatedly used profanity combined with ethnic slurs when referring to him and otherwise belittled him because he was Hispanic.
- In 1992, Lopez’s group leader, Richard Benak, gave Lopez a “superior” annual evaluation and recommended him for advancement.
- Dennis Chansler became the drafting department supervisor in 1992 and had previously asked Lopez if he was “good at picking lettuce.”
- After Chansler took over, Lopez’s evaluations worsened year after year: Chansler did not advance Lopez in 1992, reduced Benak’s evaluation in 1993, and in 1994 prepared a negative evaluation rating Lopez “marginal/needs improvement” without consulting Benak.
- In preparing the 1994 evaluation, Chansler consulted another group leader who frequently used ethnic slurs toward Lopez and who, on one occasion, entered a meeting attended by both Chansler and Lopez and announced “no spics allowed.”
- Lopez complained to other company leaders that his evaluations were “not objective” and “demeaning,” but he did not report that the treatment was based on race/ethnicity, and he did not report the derogatory comments to Chansler.
- A few months after the 1994 evaluation, Union terminated Lopez.
- Lopez sued, asserting (among other theories) that he was subjected to a racially/ethnically hostile work environment. Union moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable because it lacked notice of the harassment and Chansler denied knowing about the slurs.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in Lopez’s favor, was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that Lopez experienced harassment based on Hispanic ethnicity that was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of his employment.
2. Whether a reasonable jury could find Union had actual or constructive notice of the alleged harassment—given the supervisor’s own remark, the “no spics allowed” statement made in the supervisor’s presence, and the supervisor’s reliance on a group leader known for slurs—such that employer liability could attach and summary judgment should be denied.

## Decision

- The court denied Union’s motion for summary judgment on Lopez’s Title VII hostile work environment claim based on race/ethnicity.
- The court held that the record contained evidence from which a jury could find a work environment permeated with anti-Hispanic hostility, including repeated slurs and explicit statements such as “no spics allowed.”
- The court further held that a jury could find Union had actual or constructive knowledge of the harassment, including evidence that (a) a key slur was made in a meeting attended by the supervisor, and (b) the supervisor himself made an ethnically derogatory remark and relied on input from a group leader associated with the slurs.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment claim requires proof that harassment occurred because of a protected trait (such as race or national origin) and was sufficiently severe or pervasive to change the terms and conditions of employment.
- The severe-or-pervasive inquiry considers the totality of the circumstances, including frequency, severity, and whether the conduct was humiliating or interfered with work.
- For harassment by co-workers (or nondecisionmaking employees), an employer may be liable if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action.
- Notice can be shown by evidence that supervisory personnel witnessed the harassment, participated in it, or otherwise had enough information that a reasonable employer would have investigated and acted.
- On summary judgment, the court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor; where the record supports competing inferences on hostility and notice, the claim should proceed to a jury.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence included repeated anti-Hispanic slurs, an explicit “no spics allowed” remark made in the supervisor’s presence, and an ethnically derogatory comment by the supervisor, the court found triable fact questions on both the existence of a hostile work environment and Union’s knowledge of it, and therefore denied summary judgment on the hostile environment claim.


Lopez v. Union Tank Car Co., 8 F. Supp. 2d 832 (1998)