When can the use of a nickname at work amount to discrimination or harassment?
Quick Answer
The use of a nickname at work can amount to illegal discrimination or harassment if it is objectively connected to a protected category such as race, and – either by itself or viewed in combination with other allegedly offensive conduct – is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
Legal Perspective
Norton Rose Fulbright
Houston, Texas
It depends on the nature of the nickname, says labor and employment attorney Jamila Mensah, a partner at the global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.
When you talk about discrimination or harassment, this would be verbal harassment. It would have to be based on one of the protected categories under the law. For example, a nickname about where someone went to college isn’t a protected category.
But if the nickname is gender-specific, race-specific, or religion-specific, it would be based on a protected category. If a nickname engenders any thoughts around those specific protected categories, it should not be used in the workplace. Especially if the person/victim has made it clear that they don’t want to be called by the nickname — that’s when you start to fall into a discrimination or harassment situation. Anything unwelcome or related to a person’s protected categories should not be used.
Relevant Case Law
Hernandez v. Communications Unlimited of the South, Inc.
Brathwaite v. School Board of Broward County, Florida
Wince v. CBRE Inc.
Madden v. State of Connecticut Department of Correction
HR Insight
Outsolve - Beyond Compliance
Metairie, Louisiana
Although nicknames between colleagues can be a fun part of bonding, when those names involve a protected characteristic, they’ve crossed the line into harassment and/or discrimination, says Victoria Person.
Protected characteristics refer to a person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, and genetic information. Unwanted nicknames referring to other non-protected characteristics (such as the car you drive) aren’t illegal, just rude.
Unite Us
New York, New York
Nicknames in the workplace can be a complex issue, according to Gail Rodman, because they can potentially amount to discrimination or harassment if they target an individual based on protected characteristics, such as race, gender, religion, disability, or other factors. But when used appropriately, they can create a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in the workplace.
As HR professionals, we must be aware of and communicate the potential risks associated with nicknames to ensure an inclusive and respectful work atmosphere. Below are some key points to keep in mind when determining if a nickname is discriminatory:
- Intent Matters: The intent behind the use of nicknames can vary widely. In some cases, nicknames may be endearing or used as terms of affection among teammates. In other instances, they may be used inappropriately to belittle or target an individual. Discrimination and harassment often hinge on the intent behind such nicknames. Any nickname that is intended to demean, insult, or discriminate against an individual based on their protected characteristics (such as race, gender, religion, disability, etc.) is unacceptable and would be considered harassment.
- Protected Characteristics: It’s crucial to recognize that using a nickname related to an individual’s protected characteristics, such as race, gender, age, religion, or disability, can be discriminatory. Suppose an employee feels they are being subjected to a nickname that targets these characteristics and creates a hostile or offensive work environment. In that case, it is a serious concern that should be reported to HR.
- Consent and Respect: Employees should always feel comfortable with the nickname they are given or choose to use. It’s important to respect an individual’s preferences regarding their name and any nickname they may prefer.
CertiK
New York, New York
It depends on the nickname, says Erin ImHof, HR Leader. If it is something innocuous, then it should be fine.
But if it is disparaging or the worker doesn’t like it, then it should not be used, and continual use can amount to discrimination or harassment.
The Cost of Noncompliance
‘Motormouth’ – Employee With Tourette’s Syndrome Taunted With Ugly Nickname
Who was involved: Herbruck Poultry Ranch, Inc., an egg producer in Michigan, and a former employee with Tourette’s Syndrome.
What happened: According to an EEOC lawsuit, the employee suffered from Tourette’s Syndrome, which presented in head twitches, facial tics, humming and occasional swearing. She was subjected to a hostile work environment due to harassment based on her disability. Specifically, co-workers taunted the woman by calling her nicknames tied to her disability, including “Motormouth” and “Gabby.” The complaint alleged co-workers also mocked the employee by biting their tongues and making exaggerated head movements. After the employee complained to HR, the situation got worse, the lawsuit alleged. In mid-2015, the woman’s supervisor followed her into a restroom and initiated a confrontation. Afterward, the employee resigned, saying the working conditions were intolerable.
In the EEOC’s view, the alleged conduct violated the ADA, which requires covered employers to provide a workplace free of disability-based harassment and also prohibits retaliation against employees who complain about harassment based on their disability.
Result: The employer agreed to pay $93,000 to the worker. It must also review and revise its discrimination and harassment policies and provide ADA training to all its employees.
Info: Herbruck Poultry Ranch, Inc. Pays $93,000 to Settle EEOC Harassment and Retaliation Suit, 12/5/19.
‘Baby Girl’ and ‘Sweetheart’ – Unwelcome Nicknames Lead to $400K Payout
Who was involved: Chipotle, a national dining chain, and three former crew members who worked at a restaurant in Sammamish, Washington.
What happened: According to an EEOC lawsuit, the company allowed the three young crew members – the youngest was 17 at the time – to be harassed by their 29-year-old service manager and a 24-year-old co-worker. The alleged harassment began with unwelcome nicknames, including “baby girl,” “sweetheart” and “mama” – and then evolved to unwelcome sexual comments and requests for sexual favors. The complaint further alleged the harassment escalated to physical abuse, including inappropriate touching and trapping the women in the restaurant’s walk-in, blocking their exit. The victims said they repeatedly complained, but the employer failed to adequately investigate and failed to stop the abuse.
In the EEOC’s view, the alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to investigate and take steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
Result: Chipotle agreed to pay a total of $400,000 to the three former employees. Under the settlement agreement, it must also:
- Appoint an internal consent decree coordinator to review, revise and implement anti-discriminatory policies and procedures that prohibit sexual harassment and retaliation.
- Provide additional sexual harassment training to its employees, supervisors and managers at seven of its Washington restaurants in Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah and Sammamish.
- Provide additional training to its HR department on how to conduct sexual discrimination and harassment investigations.
- Adopt and disseminate policies holding its supervisors and managers accountable for their compliance with EEO policies and procedures.
Info: Chipotle to Pay $400,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit, 9/14/23.
Did ‘Psycho’ nickname amount to harassment? Company pays $75K to veteran with PTSD
Who was involved: Mine Rite Technologies, LLC, a manufacturing company in Wyoming, and an employee who suffered from PTSD.
What happened: The employee was a military veteran who suffered from PTSD and sought weekly mental health treatment from the Veterans Association. According to the EEOC’s suit, the supervisor harassed the employee for his condition, referring to him as “Psycho” to his co-workers and making comments about “Psycho Thursday” because that was the day he attended his therapy sessions to treat his PTSD. The harassment continued until the employee was forced to quit, saying it had become intolerable.
Result: The company paid $75,000 to the employee and also entered into a three-year consent decree. Among other things, it:
- Enjoined the company from discrimination based on disabilities.
- Required the company to create and implement equal opportunity policies.
- Required the company to provide training to its employees on disability discrimination.
- Ordered the company to provide the employee with a letter of apology and a letter of recommendation.
Info: Mine Rite Technologies to Pay $75,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Suit, 3/23/18.
Key Takeaways
- The use of a nickname may support a claim of unlawful discrimination or harassment.
- Employer liability for use of a nickname is largely dependent on whether the nickname is strongly connected to a protected characteristic and how often it was used.
- The use of an allegedly discriminatory or harassing nickname will be viewed in conjunction with other evidence to decide whether illegal discrimination or harassment has occurred.
- Employers can reduce the risk of liability by stopping the use of an allegedly discriminatory nickname immediately upon request, even if the nickname seems innocuous.
- An employee who is unable to establish an objective connection between a nickname and a protected category is unlikely to prevail on a discrimination or harassment claim that is based on use of the nickname.
INSIDER CONTENT
Q&As