On April 10, 2024, a federal jury in Pennsylvania awarded $20.5 million to a Black customer service representative who faced a racially hostile work environment. Then, on August 30, 2024, a federal jury in Indiana granted over $1 million to a Black plaintiff who claimed he was not hired due to his race. On September 9, 2024, a federal jury in Alabama awarded more than $3.8 million to an Iranian research scientist who was subjected to racial and national origin harassment. Lastly, on September 12, 2024, a jury in Washington awarded nearly $238 million to a Black UPS driver, who alleged that UPS discriminated against and harassed him because of his race, and retaliated after he reported the misconduct.
While the Pennsylvania and Washington verdicts have been reduced by the court, and the other awards may be appealed or similarly modified, these cases highlight how juries evaluate racial discrimination claims and the type of evidence that leads to such significant awards.
Case Overview: Holmes v. American HomePatient
Shortly after Patricia Holmes began her role as a customer service representative at American HomePatient (“AHP”), her supervisor and coworkers started using racially offensive slurs. Holmes, who is Black, was subjected to derogatory terms such as the “N” word and “coonie,” as well as references to the Ku Klux Klan, on multiple occasions. She reported the harassment to her supervisor’s superior and AHP’s Human Resources (“HR”) department. HR conducted an investigation and issued a “written warning” to both Holmes’s supervisor and one of her coworkers. However, the harassment persisted, leading Ms. Holmes to resign. She filed a lawsuit against AHP, alleging that the company fostered a hostile work environment filled with racial harassment and discrimination, retaliated against her for reporting the mistreatment, and forced her to resign. The District Court granted AHP’s motion for summary judgment in part, determining that Holmes did not provide enough evidence to prove retaliation or constructive discharge, but allowed her hostile work environment claims to move forward.
After a trial, the jury sided with Holmes, concluding that AHP had intentionally discriminated against her, creating a hostile work environment based on race, and failed to take reasonable action to prevent or remedy the harassment. Holmes was awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages. Additionally, the jury found that AHP’s actions were malicious or exhibited reckless indifference to her right to be free from racial harassment, leading to a $20 million punitive damages award. The court later reduced the punitive damages to $1 million to comply with constitutional due process, bringing AHP’s total liability to $1.5 million.
One of the main hurdles in this case was reaching trial. The defendants sought summary judgment, and the court granted it on some of the employee’s claims, preventing those claims from being heard by the jury.
Conclusion
Across the United States, juries have rejected race discrimination. When an employee experiences racial discrimination or harassment in the workplace and takes the case to trial, a jury is likely to award appropriate compensation for the emotional and psychological distress caused by the mistreatment. Juries understand that this emotional harm is significant, regardless of whether the discrimination also led to lost wages.
Moreover, juries often impose punitive damages on employers who discriminate or harass employees based on race, especially if the employer failed to act after the employee raised concerns. These damages serve as punishment and a deterrent to such behavior.
No one should ever have to endure racial discrimination or harassment at work. However, for those who do, the legal system offers a way to hold employers accountable and provide compensation to victims. Employees considering taking action against their employer for discrimination or harassment should consult with an experienced attorney to maximize the potential for a favorable outcome. Our attorneys in Washington, D.C., are well-versed in these types of cases and can assist employees in exploring their options, assessing their claims, and, if appropriate, taking their case to trial.