John McKinney, Jr. v. G4S Government Solutions, Inc.
711 F. App'x 130
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- McKinney, an African‑American G4S security employee at Radford Army Ammunition Plant, reported two May 23, 2013 incidents: discovery of a noose and a staged white‑sheet resembling a KKK hood involving supervisors and coworkers. He interpreted accompanying comments as racially threatening.
- After reporting, G4S management (including Senior VP Allen and HR’s Handel) investigated; Lewis (a supervisor) was placed on leave and later terminated; others implicated were given sensitivity/diversity training.
- McKinney received two counseling forms dated May 23 (received May 24) and alleges subsequent exclusion from meetings and other adverse treatment he calls retaliation.
- He recorded workplace conversations and complained to the highest Army officer on site; he acknowledged no racial harassment after May 23 and remains employed and later promoted to A Shift Captain.
- District court granted summary judgment for G4S on hostile work environment (Faragher/Ellerth defense), retaliation (no materially adverse action), and IIED (no severe distress); Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (Title VII/§1981) | Harassing conduct (noose, white sheet, racial comments) created an actionable hostile environment | G4S exercised reasonable care (policy, investigation, training); McKinney failed to use internal reporting promptly | G4S entitled to Faragher/Ellerth defense; summary judgment for G4S |
| Tangible employment action / constructive discharge | Counseling forms, shift changes, exclusion, micromanagement were adverse/tangible or made conditions intolerable | These actions did not change pay, status, or responsibilities; McKinney kept/promoted to preferred shift and remains employed | No tangible employment action; constructive discharge not established |
| Retaliation | After protected complaint, McKinney suffered write‑ups, exclusion, car vandalism, micromanagement constituting materially adverse actions | The counseling forms and workplace slights were not materially adverse and some predated the complaint; causation lacking | No materially adverse employment action; summary judgment for G4S |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Virginia law) | Harassment caused severe emotional distress (high BP, insomnia, marital problems) | Distress allegations are not extreme or severe as required under Virginia law | IIED claim fails; no severe emotional distress proved; summary judgment for G4S |
Key Cases Cited
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (affirmative defense for employer when no tangible employment action)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (same; elements of employer affirmative defense)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile work environment actionable under Title VII)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse retaliatory acts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Lissau v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177 (employee’s failure to use complaint procedure supports employer defense)