Tilghman v. Cenveo Worldwide
1:20-cv-01842
| D. Maryland | Mar 11, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Sean Tilghman was hired as a warehouse lead at Cenveo’s Hurlock, MD facility after consolidation in 2018. His lead position had the least seniority and was targeted for elimination in a company-wide cost reduction plan begun late 2018.
- On April 9, 2019, during an eight-person WebEx call, an anonymous speaker (heard only by Tilghman and two coworkers on the warehouse floor) used a racial slur directed at Tilghman; the speaker’s identity could not be determined.
- Tilghman reported the incident to his supervisor that day and filed a charge with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights on April 12, 2019.
- Cenveo’s HR investigated (interviewing several call participants but not Tilghman), concluded no call participant used the slur, and determined the remark likely originated from the warehouse or an external source.
- On May 1, 2019, Tilghman’s position was eliminated as part of the previously planned reduction in force; Tilghman sued under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act for hostile work environment and retaliation.
- The court granted Cenveo’s motion for summary judgment, concluding (1) the single, anonymous slur was not objectively severe or pervasive and Cenveo was not liable for it, and (2) Tilghman failed to show but‑for causation or pretext for his termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (severity/pervasiveness) | Tilghman: a single use of the n‑word in a work setting is sufficiently severe. | Cenveo: isolated, anonymous slur not objectively severe/pervasive. | Court: single, anonymous slur without additional aggravating circumstances not severe/pervasive. |
| Employer liability/imputation for third‑party/co‑worker slur | Tilghman: Cenveo knew or should have known and failed to remediate. | Cenveo: timely investigation undertaken; could not identify speaker; no evidence company tolerated harassment. | Court: Cenveo acted reasonably; plaintiff failed to show employer knew and failed to take prompt remedial action. |
| Retaliation (causation and pretext) | Tilghman: temporal proximity to protected complaint supports causation; no other reason for termination. | Cenveo: decision to eliminate his position was made months earlier for budgetary reasons; termination was legitimate RIF. | Court: plaintiff produced no evidence of pretext; RIF decision predated complaint; no but‑for causation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (defines severe or pervasive standard for hostile work environment)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (hostile work environment assessed from reasonable person in plaintiff’s position)
- Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) (consideration of harasser’s status and severity in hostile environment cases)
- Pryor v. United Air Lines, 791 F.3d 488 (4th Cir. 2015) (use of n‑word considered among factors showing severity where additional aggravating facts present)
- Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., 750 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2014) (employer imputation requires knowledge or constructive knowledge and failure to take prompt remedial action)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- E.E.O.C. v. Xerxes, 639 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2011) (no exhaustive list of remedial measures; reasonableness of employer’s investigation judged under totality of circumstances)