JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Legal Newsline) - Claims that African-American workers were subjected to nooses, Confederate flags and racist graffiti at a Harley-Davidson factory are enough to allow a hostile workplace suit to proceed even if the plaintiffs never saw such things themselves, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled.
It is enough to allege some Black workers suffered racial harassment to meet the requirements for suing under the Missouri Human Rights Act and equivalent federal laws, the court ruled in a Jan. 30 decision by Judge W. Brent Powell.
Plaintiff Emanuel Matthews and other workers were employed by Harley-Davidson and Syncreon at factory in Kansas City, which closed in 2019 with the loss of 800 jobs. The plaintiffs claimed numerous violations including forcing Syncreon employees, who were mostly Black, to stay within certain areas of the plant while white Harley-Davidson workers could go wherever they wanted and managers telling workers to delete photographs of nooses and racist graffiti in a Syncreon bathroom.
The plaintiffs also claimed a white female Syncreon employee showed a Black worker “a family photo bordered by Confederate flags” and white family members “depicting racist signs.” And they said Sycreon hired a white male manager who had previously been fired by Harley-Davidson for discriminating against Black employees.
A trial judge dismissed the lawsuit after Harley-Davidson and Syncreon argued plaintiffs didn’t meet two of the four elements required in a discrimination suit: That none of the named plaintiffs actually witnessed the harassment they were suing over and it didn’t affect their employment.
The Supreme Court rejected both arguments.
“While the petition did not specifically allege appellants witnessed or experienced the racially charged incidents, these incidents – such as nooses, graffitied swastikas, and racist threats written on bathroom walls – by their very nature, targeted and preyed on all black employees in the plant,” the court said. “The harassment affected their dignity, work performance, and physiological well-being.”
The court also said the allegations supported a claim Harley-Davidson aided and abetted the discrimination, defining for the for the first time the facts necessary to support such a claim under Missouri law. It adopted the definition in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which asks whether the defendant encouraged the discrimination, was present when it occurred and displayed the state of mind to support it.
The facts in this case were enough to support an aiding and abetting claim and it shouldn’t have been dismissed before trial, the court concluded.