Robert Adams v. Austal, USA, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the use of racial slurs around the plaintiff raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to severity
• concluding that, although a Caucasian supervisor’s carving of “porch monkeys” into the aluminum of a ship where he was working with the African-American plaintiff “was an isolated act, it was severe”
• holding that a supervisor’s “isolated act”—carving the slur “porch monkey” in front of the plaintiff—was severe
• holding that plaintiffs who experienced racial slurs targeting them personally, combined with other evidence, created an issue of fact on the existence of a hostile work environment
• holding that an isolated act could assist in establishing hostility because “it was severe”
• concluding that, although a Caucasian supervisor's carving of “porch monkeys” into the aluminum of a ship where he was working with the African-American plaintiff “was an isolated act, it was severe”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).