Weekly Edition

‘Hostile’ anti-Muslim claim can go to jury

A rental company must defend at trial a Muslim employee’s Title VII claim of a hostile environment from coworkers calling him a terrorist, a towel head and a Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

In EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals Inc. (VLW 008-2-052), a Maryland federal district judge acknowledged that the “coarse behavior” at the rental store was a little more “rough and ready” than would be suitable for “fine ladies” of the “Century Club of New York.” The judge granted summary judgment to the employer, saying the incidents were not severe or pervasive.

The response of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – reversal and remand for trial – illustrates the tough point about hostile environment claims. One employee’s rough-and-ready work place can be another employee’s hostile work environment. Sometimes it’s hard for lawyers – and courts – to know where to draw the line.

Clinton Ingram, an African-American who converted to Islam while serving in the U.S. Army, was the only Muslim employee at Sunbelt Rentals’ Gaithersburg, Md. office, where Ingram was a rental manager. He kept a beard and wore a kufi, traditional headgear for observant Muslim men.

Company officials provided a private space for Ingram’s daily prayers and time off for Friday congregational prayers. But coworkers allegedly kept up a steady stream of invective about Ingram and his religious practices, with another rental manager calling Ingram a “fake ass Muslim want-to-be turbine wearing ass.” Fellow employees frequently hid Ingram’s time card when he went to Friday prayers, constantly unplugged his computer equipment and physically threatened him, he alleged.

When Ingram complained to company management about persistent harassment, the company’s human resources director told local management the complaint was serious and needed to be addressed.

The Gaithersburg manager took no disciplinary action, saying he could not determine which individuals were responsible. He told Ingram’s coworkers to avoid making comments about Ingram or Muslims in general. The Gaithersburg manager told HR the complaints were “personal” and the company had been “very accommodating” to Ingram in his prayer practice. The manager counseled Ingram not to “take things so personal” and to maintain a “positive attitude.”

When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appealed summary judgment for the company on Ingram’s claim of religious harassment in violation of Title VII, the 4th Circuit reversed.

Writing for the 4th Circuit panel, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said there was “overwhelming evidence” that Ingram’s coworkers had no respect for his Muslim faith. They called him derogatory names associated with that faith and harassed him about his prayers and his appearance, “particularly his kufi and beard.”

Abusive comments also apparently spiked after it was publicized that the D.C. snipers were Muslim.

“Names can hurt as much as sticks and stones, and the Supreme Court has never indicated that the humiliation so frequently attached to hostile environments need be accompanied by physical threat or force,” and there is no “crude environment” exception in Title VII, Wilkinson wrote.
The panel also saw impingement on Ingram’s First Amendment rights.

“Title VII makes plain that religious freedom in America entails more than the right to attend one’s own synagogue, mosque or church. Free religious exercise would mean little if restricted to places of worship or days of observance, only to disappear the next morning at work,” the court said.

The employer’s response – accusations of paranoia and litigation – demonstrated the company’s “willful blindness,” the court said.

Because the EEOC established factual disputes on each element of Ingram’s hostile work environment claim, a jury should get the chance to hear his suit, Wilkinson said.

© Copyright 2008, by Virginia Lawyers Media, all rights reserved