Renee Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11317
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Renee Pryor, an African-American United Airlines flight attendant, found a racist death‑threat note in her secure company mailbox in Jan. 2011 purporting to be a “Federal Nigger Hunting License,” and later received a similar note in Oct. 2011. Several colleagues also found copies.
- The mailroom was in a restricted airport area accessible to employees and authorized persons; Pryor was frightened and reported the matter to supervisors who did not follow the company’s Harassment & Discrimination (H&D) policy to notify the Employee Service Center (ESC).
- United’s initial response: limited internal handling, no immediate police report, minimal preservation/forensic steps, delayed employee notice, and no interviews; Corporate Security later closed the first investigation without identifying a suspect.
- Pryor filed a police report herself and later escalated to ESC; United installed temporary cameras only after the second wave of notes and then closed the second investigation without identifying suspects.
- Pryor sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII alleging a racially hostile work environment and systemic failure to investigate; the district court found the notes sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment but granted summary judgment for United on employer liability.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding a reasonable jury could find United’s initial response was not reasonably calculated or prompt given the severity, anonymity, and secure-location context of the threats.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two anonymous, racially‑charged death‑threat notes created a hostile work environment | Notes were severe (racial slur, lynching imagery, death threat) and, in context with other racially‑tinged incidents, could be objectively and subjectively abusive | Notes were isolated, infrequent, anonymous, and thus insufficient to be severe or pervasive | Court: Notes were sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment (reasonable jury could so find) |
| Whether United can be held liable for coworker/third‑party harassment by an anonymous actor | United knew/should have known and failed to take effective remedial steps reasonably calculated to end harassment | Employer not strictly liable; anonymity and lack of certainty that different measures would have found culprit absolves United | Court: Employer liability depends on reasonableness of response; here a reasonable jury could find United’s response to the first note was not prompt or reasonably calculated to end harassment |
| Whether United’s compliance with its internal H&D policy matters for liability | Failure to follow H&D (ESC notice, police reporting, forensics, interviews) shows inadequate response | Failure to follow internal policy is not per se unreasonable; employer discretion exists | Court: Noncompliance with policy is a relevant factor; company’s departures supported jury question on reasonableness |
| Whether effectiveness (or lack thereof) of employer’s response is dispositive | Ineffectiveness (recurrence and wider distribution of notes) indicates initial response was inadequate | Even a diligent response might not have succeeded; inability to show it would have caught perpetrator undermines claim | Court: Effectiveness is one factor but not dispositive; recurrence supports a jury inference that the initial response was inadequate and not reasonably calculated to stop harassment |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (employer not strictly liable for coworker harassment)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (standards for employer liability for hostile work environment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment standard)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (objective reasonable‑person perspective)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (isolated incidents vs. extremely serious single incidents)
- EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306 (employer must take remedial action reasonably calculated to end harassment)
- EEOC v. Xerxes Corp., 639 F.3d 658 (same standard applies to anonymous actors)
- Cerros v. Steel Techs., Inc., 398 F.3d 944 (efficacy of remedial action relevant to adequacy)
- Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179 (context and use of racial slur probative of severity)
- Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132 (anonymity raises factual questions about reasonableness of employer response)