## Facts

- Ranee Tademy, an African-American railroad employee, alleged he experienced racial harassment at work over several years.
- Incidents included repeated racial slurs and graffiti (including “n****r”) on lockers and bathroom walls, racist cartoons displayed on workplace boards, and racially derogatory remarks by co-workers and supervisors.
- A supervisor allegedly addressed Tademy as “boy” after he arrived late; the employer imposed a 30-day paid leave, which Tademy argued was inadequate.
- A message sent from a manager’s account and posted publicly stated: “Keep an eye on the slaves, seriously.” The employer concluded a non-manager accessed the account; the employee was fired but later reinstated.
- A life-sized noose was discovered hanging in a work structure; Tademy alleged this incident profoundly affected him and he did not return to work thereafter.
- Tademy was later diagnosed with major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and an anxiety disorder, and he entered disability retirement.
- Tademy sued Union Pacific under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for a racially hostile work environment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Union Pacific, reasoning in part that certain incidents were time-barred, the conduct was not severe or pervasive, and some allegations were barred due to a prior EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable jury could infer racial animus from the timely workplace display of a life-sized noose.
2. Whether acts outside the limitations period were sufficiently related to the timely act to be treated as one hostile work environment.
3. Whether the totality of the evidence could satisfy the “severe or pervasive” requirement for a hostile work environment.
4. Whether there was a triable issue that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, adequate remedial action.
5. Whether a prior EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter barred litigation of overlapping incidents in a continuing hostile-environment theory.
6. Whether the hostile-environment limitations analysis applicable to Title VII also applies to § 1981 hostile work environment claims.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find the noose incident was motivated by racial animus and occurred within the limitations period.
- The court held earlier harassment could be considered because a jury could find the pre- and post-limitations incidents were part of a single hostile work environment.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find the environment sufficiently severe or pervasive based on the totality of the alleged conduct.
- The court held factual disputes existed regarding employer notice (including recurring racist graffiti) and the adequacy of Union Pacific’s responses.
- The court held Tademy was not barred from relying on incidents covered by an earlier right-to-sue letter where the claim alleged one continuing hostile work environment.
- The court held the same limitations framework applied to § 1981 hostile work environment claims, making summary judgment improper on that claim as well.

## Legal Principles

- A hostile work environment claim may be based on a series of related acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice; if at least one contributing act is timely, earlier related acts may be considered.
- A workplace display of a noose can support an inference of racial animus sufficient to permit a jury determination, even without direct proof identifying the perpetrator.
- Hostile work environment liability turns on the totality of circumstances, including frequency and severity of conduct and whether it altered the conditions of employment.
- An employer may face liability where evidence supports that it knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.
- A prior right-to-sue letter does not necessarily bar reliance on earlier incidents when the plaintiff plausibly alleges those incidents are part of the same continuing hostile work environment.
- The hostile-environment limitations analysis used in Title VII cases applies to hostile work environment claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that the evidence, viewed as a whole and anchored by a timely noose incident, could permit a reasonable jury to find a single racially hostile work environment and disputed issues on employer notice and response, requiring reversal of summary judgment on both Title VII and § 1981 claims.


Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2008)