06-4073 - Ranee Tademy, Appellant v. Union Pacific Corporation, etc., et al.; National Employment Lawyers Association, et al., Amici Curiae
U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
(March 8, 2007)
Briefs
Briefs require requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.
- Appellant's Brief (5.1 MB PDF)
- Brief of Appellees (2.6 MB PDF)
- Appellant's Reply Brief (2 MB PDF)
- Brief of the EEOC as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant (349 KB PDF)
Case Summary (prepared at Washburn Law)
Procedure
This is an appeal from a race discrimination claim in the Federal District Court of Utah. Appellant (Tademy) seeks to reverse the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to Union Pacific (appellee).
Facts
When Tademy began as an employee of Union Pacific (UP) he was subjected to numerous racial epithets. For instance, one morning he found the words "nigger" scratched onto his locker and another day found a picture of an African-American labeled as a "monkey." Tademy also alleges that a brakeman that served under his command refused to follow his orders because he was black. Tademy maintains that UP did nothing about these situations. When Tademy was insulted by his manager, for example, Tademy alleges UP did little to investigate the situation and allowed the manager to continue to oversee Tademy's work. These instances culminated with the hanging of a life-size noose in Tademy's work environment. Tademy also asserts that other minorities were harassed openly during his tenure with UP-e.g. Native Americans were referred to as "chiefs."
Issues
- Issue 1: Did the district court err by drawing all factual inferences in regard to the race discrimination claim in UP's favor?
- Issue 2: Did the district court err by excluding past instances of race discrimination allegedly inflicted by UP?
- Issue 3: Did the district court err in holding that UP had sufficiently remedied known instances of race discrimination, due to the district court's failure to consider instances of harassment experienced by Tademy before the limitations period had expired and due to excluding evidence of racial harassment of other employees?
Appellant's Arguments
- Issue 1: Tademy maintains that in a race discrimination claim all facts should be construed in his favor.
- Issue 2: Tademy believes that some of the instances of race discrimination should have been allowed as background evidence and the district court made other incorrect conclusions in excluding this evidence.
- Issue 3: Tademy alleges that the district court wrongly ignored instances of race discrimination that occurred early in his career. Tademy contends that UP did not take proper measures to remedy these situations. Tademy also argues that the district court ignored the fact that UP inadequately remedied known discrimination inflicted on other minority employees at UP.
Respondent's Arguments
- Issue 1: UP states that the facts were construed in Tademy's favor and that UP in fact remedied any abuses that Tademy may have suffered.
- Issue 2: UP argues that all but two of Tademy's claims are time-barred. The two remaining instances are the noose incident and a random drug testing incident. Plus, UP argues that background evidence is only allowed to provide context to discrete acts that are not discriminatory on their face. Here, UP asserts that the other instances of race discrimination are not background facts because the two timely instances of race discrimination, if true, were discriminatory on their face.
- Issue 3: UP argues that most of Tademy's alleged instances of race discrimination are time-barred. Further, UP asserts that Tademy cannot assert race discrimination claims on behalf of other employees. Finally, UP maintains that it took every reasonable action to remedy Tademy's complaints of discriminatory treatment.
