1,947 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1904–2026)
A hostile work environment claim requires showing that unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment. Courts consider the frequency, severity, and nature of the conduct, as well as whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee's work performance. Both the subjective experience and an objective standard are evaluated.
Employers most frequently appearing in hostile work environment rulings.
The trial court erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as there is a reasonable dispute of fact whether the display of a noose in appellant's vehicle was severe enough conduct to create a hostile work environment. The trial court also erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as to appellant's retaliation claim. There is a reasonable dispute of fact whether appellant's termination based on his refusal to turn over the noose to appellees, or allow them to cut a piece of it for use in the investigation, was protected activity. Judgment reversed and remanded.
The trial court erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as there is a reasonable dispute of fact whether the display of a noose in appellant's vehicle was severe enough conduct to create a hostile work environment. The trial court also erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as to appellant's retaliation claim. There is a reasonable dispute of fact whether appellant's termination based on his refusal to turn over the noose to appellees, or allow them to cut a piece of it for use in the investigation, was protected activity. Judgment reversed and remanded.
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.