James H. Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass Richard A. Rutta Ernest Stickell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that supervisor’s constant, even daily, use of racial epithets was sufficiently severe or pervasive to survive summary judgment
• explaining that the rule against contradictory affidavits only applies to “bona-fide inconsistenc[ies]” that are “clear-cut” without any “ambiguity”
• noting that the “constant use of the word ‘monkey’ to describe African Americans was similarly odious” to the use of the word “nigger”
• stating that, “We are, after all, concerned with the ‘environment’ of ... hostility, and whatever the contours of one’s environment, they surely may exceed the individual dynamic between the complainant and [her harasser].”
• examining the frequency of discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or mere offensive utterance and whether it unreasonably interferes with employee’s work performance
• plaintiff demonstrated harassment was severe and pervasive where he was exposed on a “continuous daily” basis to blatantly racist slurs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).