Brief Overview

  • According to court documents filed on March 31, a federal jury ordered building materials company Cemex to pay $5 million to a California truck driver who alleged racial and disability discrimination.
  • In Sample v. Cemex, the plaintiff claimed he faced near-daily harassment from coworkers and sued Cemex along with several individual defendants. In January, a federal judge granted summary judgment, dismissing claims against the individual defendants but allowing most of the plaintiff's allegations against Cemex to proceed.
  • The jury found Cemex liable for a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The jury rejected claims of discrimination in contract formation and enforcement and did not award punitive damages against the company. A Cemex spokesperson told HR Dive in an email that the company is evaluating its next legal steps.

In-Depth Analysis

The plaintiff is an African American man born with congenital aural atresia. In his fourth amended complaint, he raised multiple claims and described his treatment as "egregious."

Specific allegations included coworkers repeatedly using derogatory language and epithets, leading him to file multiple complaints with the company's human resources department, which Cemex allegedly refused to investigate. He later added claims that his termination constituted unlawful retaliation. The company attributed his firing to the plaintiff's failure to disclose his disability and medical condition when obtaining federal medical certification to drive; the termination occurred after he filed his initial lawsuit.

In its January ruling, the court found Cemex's reason for termination legitimate because the plaintiff lacked valid U.S. Department of Transportation certification to operate a vehicle.

However, the court allowed most of the plaintiff's other claims to proceed, finding he had demonstrated genuine disputes of material fact regarding his discrimination and harassment allegations, including that the company's HR department refused to investigate his reported harassment.

The jury ultimately found that the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Cemex management knew or should have known about the harassment yet failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to stop it.

A Cemex spokesperson told HR Dive: "We strongly oppose all workplace discrimination or harassment and are disappointed with the trial outcome."

The ruling is one of several recent hostile work environment cases in which juries have awarded damages to plaintiffs. For example, in February, a Utah jury awarded more than $5 million to an HR professional who alleged harassment but whose internal complaints were dismissed by an HR executive.

In December, a California jury imposed a higher penalty on insurer Liberty Mutual, awarding $103 million to a former employee who alleged a hostile work environment and age discrimination, among other claims.

According to guidance issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a hostile work environment under federal employment law occurs when harassment is severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable person feel intimidated, hostile, or abusive. However, courts have previously ruled that isolated instances of harassment or discrimination do not constitute a hostile work environment.