Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—M.D. Tenn.: Goodwill to face trial on gay driver’s claims of coworker sex/race harassment, retaliatory response, (Sep 22, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The employer did not dispute that supervisors did nothing to reprimand homophobic language and instead laughed or joined in the banter.

A Black, gay Goodwill driver, who claimed her male coworkers subjected her to homophobic, sexist, and racist remarks, and that in response to her internal complaints or EEOC charge she was assigned unsafe trucks, subjected to an HR investigation, and placed on a three-day suspension, survived summary judgment on her Title VII hostile work environment (HWE) and retaliation claims. A federal district court found that the context of the comments—which included calling women “bitches,” telling the employee and her Mexican coworker that they were affirmative action hires, using the N-word, and a supervisor’s remark to a coworker that “they should take [gay people] out and shoot them all”—suggested they were meant to be degrading and offensive, and they were often directed at the employee (Glenn v. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00465 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 19, 2025)).

Coworker harassment. The employee claimed male drivers referred to women as “bitches” and told her and a Mexican female driver that they only had a job because of affirmative action. The coworkers also made homophobic comments or jokes in her presence, and supervisors laughed or even participated in the banter. In September 2019, she complained about the harassment to her supervisor, who allegedly indicated that he was not going to do anything.

HR investigation. Around the same time, HR initiated an investigation into alleged complaints by coworkers that the employee cursed at them and engaged in petty annoyances such as hiding keys to trucks and purposely blocking in trucks. Though the HR investigator interviewed her about these complaints on October 4, she never received any discipline as a result of the investigation.

Dispatcher’s offensive remark. Sometime around December 2019, she and a female coworker complained about having to use a universal bathroom, and the male dispatcher responded that the urinal seats were not a problem for him because his “d*ck is so big.” A month later, he told the employee that he had started to “smack her ass” when she was bending down to tie her shoe. She complained to the HR manager, but no action was taken.

EEOC charge. In March 2020, she filed an EEOC charge describing, amongst other things, the dispatcher’s remark. In response, HR investigated and he was eventually suspended.

Suspension. In July 2020, a coworker said that he did not “understand gay people,” and a supervisor responded, “I don’t either. I think they should take them out and shoot them all.” Two days later, on July 22, the same supervisor suspended the employee for three days without pay, purportedly because her accusations against the dispatcher were “not in good faith.” Several months later, she received a final written warning after she failed to attend mandatory training and did not show up for work on December 4 and 5, 2020.

Sex/race based harassment. Goodwill first argued that summary judgment was warranted as to the employee’s HWE claim because the alleged conduct was not discriminatory. The court disagreed, finding direct evidence that the harassment was both race-based and sex-based. In addition to describing a myriad of both homophobic and sexually offensive remarks and conduct, she also stated that she experienced racist remarks as a part of “common, everyday conversation,” including the N-word. She also claimed that racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks were common and not disciplined, and that management failed to take any action after a former coworker complained that a supervisor subjected her to sexually oriented remarks and homophobic language.

Sufficiently severe or pervasive. The court also rejected the employer’s contention that the harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive. While the record did not suggest physical intimidation, a reasonable jury could find that the remarks—which were either sexual in nature or disrespectful towards her race or sexual orientation—were degrading and offensive. The nature of these comments, along with the almost one-year frequency—could also lead a jury to find that the employee was subjected to an environment that was objectively abusive or hostile. This was especially so “considering the context in which these comments were made does not indicate they were intended to be teasing or comical, but rather were meant to be degrading and offensive, and often directed at Plaintiff.”

Employer liability. Declining to treat the dispatcher as a supervisor for purposes of establishing employer liability for the HWE claim, the court pointed to the fact that the employee failed to dispute that she did not report to him and he did not manage the transportation department or have a supervisory role. However, a jury would decide whether she established liability for coworker harassment since triable issues existed as to whether Goodwill “knew or should have known about the harassment but failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.” The court noted that the HR manager testified that once management became aware of her EEOC charge, a prompt investigation occurred and the dispatcher was disciplined. However, the employee presented evidence that she previously complained about the harassment but no action was taken. Moreover, Goodwill did not dispute that supervisors did nothing to reprimand homophobic language and actually laughed in response or even participated in it themselves.

Retaliatory actions. The employee alleged that management retaliated against her by assigning her unsafe trucks, launching an HR investigation into her alleged harassment of coworkers, and suspending her without pay in July 2020. In moving for summary judgment, Goodwill argued that the first two alleged acts of retaliation did not constitute material adverse employment actions. But triable issues existed as to whether she met this low bar, including to what extent the HR investigation was “invasive, reputation-harming, or menacing” and to what extent (if at all) the trucks assigned to her were unsafe. Significantly, the employer did not raise any other argument as to these actions—such as proffering any legitimate justification or arguing that the trucks were in fact safe. Thus, because she survived summary judgment as to those actions, the court declined to address the merits of her retaliation claim as to the three-day suspension and allowed the entire claim to proceed to trial.

The case is No. 3:21-cv-00465.

Judge: Richardson, E.

Attorneys: Mark T. Freeman (Freeman & Fuson) for Pamela Glenn. J. Scott Hickman (Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison) for Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc.

Companies: Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc.

Cases: SexDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation TennesseeNews