Was company’s response to racial harassment ‘good enough’? Court weighs in
By

Every good employer knows that when an employee complains of racial harassment, it has the responsibility to investigate the claims and put a stop to the behavior.
But how thorough does the investigation have to be? How quickly does it have to be conducted?
A recent lawsuit resulted when an employee faced severe racial harassment and sued his employer — but the company also worked to put a stop to the harassment.
So who was in the wrong? Here’s what a court said.
Multiple incidents
Ronald Burns worked as a maintenance tech at Berry Global in Kentucky. He experienced multiple incidents of racial harassment within three weeks.
The first was someone leaving a note on his locker that said, “dance monkey.” Burns complained to HR, and the company then examined security footage in an attempt to identify who left the note.
Unable to nail down the culprit, management reminded employees that this kind of harassment wouldn’t be tolerated.
The next incident consisted of someone leaving a noose on Burns’ locker. He complained again, and was given a few days off with pay. HR interviewed dozens of employees about the incident, but were unable to identify a suspect.
A few weeks later, Burns found a note in his locker containing a racial slur. Again, he reported it, and again, HR conducted interviews. Based on these interviews, they were able to identify a suspect. He was suspended without pay, and Burns was offered a shift transfer. He declined.
Several months later, Burns found another noose amongst his things. He immediately quit and filed a racial harassment suit against the company.
‘Shy of perfect’
The court needed to determine if the company adequately responded to the harassment, or if it tolerated or condoned the behavior.
Burns’ attorney pointed out that the harassment never stopped, and the company never conducted any formal racial harassment training.
However, the 6th Circuit ended up siding with Berry Global. It said, “Burns undeniably suffered heinous racial harassment while employed by Berry,” but the company took “prompt, if shy of perfect, action.”
Essentially, the company did work hard to find the perpetrator and took each incident complaint seriously.
What employers can take away from this case is that your response to harassment doesn’t have to be perfect. However, employers do need to act quickly and reasonably when they receive a complaint.
Further Reading
FMLA Intermittent Leave: 8 Questions HR Asks Most
Partial days, doctor’s notes, late arrivals. If intermittent FMLA leave keeps you guessing, these eight answers can help clear things up for HR.
Unpaid Pre-Shift Work Costs New Jersey Employer $725K
A New Jersey drywall installer must pay $725,000 after failing to pay 48 workers overtime for pre-shift work performed while they waited for transportation to job sites. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found P & B Partitions Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules. The company also refused […]
Connecticut Joins States Regulating Workplace AI: 7 Compliance Steps
Connecticut is putting employers on notice over workplace AI. Effective Oct. 1, 2026, SB 5 clarifies that Connecticut employers facing a discrimination claim can’t blame the artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use to make hiring, promotion, discipline or termination decisions. Other changes that kicked in the same day: And there’s more coming. The law’s second […]
USCIS Plans to Abolish 60-Day Grace Period for Certain Nonimmigrant Workers
On Sept. 11, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, if adopted, would eliminate the 60-day grace period currently granted to most nonimmigrant workers in H-1B, H-1B1, E-1, E-2, E-3, L-1, O-1 or TN status who abruptly lose their positions. The grace period has been in place since […]
Pa. Court Sets 3-Year Deadline for Minimum Wage Act Claims
Pennsylvania employers face a three-year window for employees to sue over unpaid minimum wages or overtime under state law, rather than the six years a trial court previously allowed. The ruling came in a case involving 20 pharmacy employees seeking overtime for work done from 2017 to 2019. The employers argued the claims were filed […]
Hidden Payroll Rounding Risk: Unpaid Pre-Shift Time Under Scrutiny
Required pre-shift tasks – and whether employees are paid for them – are at the center of a former hospital nurse’s wage dispute. Chestnut Hill Hospital required nurses to change into surgical scrubs by 7 a.m. for a morning huddle. Pamela McBride sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the hospital didn’t pay her […]