Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D. Idaho: White employee advances associational discrimination, hostile work environment claims, (Sep 30, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

A reasonable juror could find that being told to return to California if the employee didn’t want to hear the “n-word,” and having his attention directed toward a noose near his workstation, was a threat on his life or was intended to harass him.

After a former employee sued for associational discrimination upon being subjected to various racial slurs at work, a federal court in Idaho denied summary judgment for the employer on the issues of associational discrimination and hostile work environment. A reasonable juror, said the court, could find that being told to return to California if he did not want to hear the “n-word,” and having his attention directed toward a noose near his workstation, was a threat on his life or was intended to harass him. Moreover, while much of the racist language was not specifically aimed at him, the cumulative effect—particularly the noose and comments directed toward him as a white person defending minorities—could support a finding of objective and subjective hostility. The retaliation claim failed, however, as the employee never reported misconduct to management or HR, and his objections to coworkers did not qualify as opposition to an employer’s unlawful practice (Burnett v. Teton Prestress Concrete, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-00074-DCN (D. Idaho Sept. 23, 2025)).

Racial slurs. The employee, a white man, worked for the employer from March to May 2022. He is married to a Filipino woman, has children of mixed race, and his best friend is Black. At issue in the case were various racial slurs that he claimed he was subjected to by his coworkers. Examples included colleagues calling a Mexican employee a “beaner,” making racially charged “jokes” about Black people (including a derogatory “cotton in Advil bottles” joke), and frequent use of the “n-word.” The employee objected several times, telling coworkers “you can’t say that.”

Go back to California. The situation escalated on May 19 when a coworker used the “n-word” in a joke, to which the employee objected and another worker responded that “people say the n-word around here” and told the employee to “go back to California” if he did not like it. Coworkers then referenced a removed sign that once read “Mexicans need not apply” and directed the employee to look at a noose hanging above a workstation. He interpreted this as a threat to his life. When he complained to a supervisor, he received only a dismissive reaction. He quit immediately, believing the environment was intolerable.

The employee never filed internal complaints, believing management was complicit. Instead, he filed charges with the EEOC and the Idaho Human Rights Commission. In October 2023, the EEOC found probable cause. The employee then filed suit, asserting claims under Title VII, the Idaho Human Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for associational discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The employer moved for summary judgment.

Associational discrimination. The court noted that although many racial slurs predated the employee’s employment and were not directed at him, the noose incident created a triable issue. “Construing the facts in [the plaintiff’s] favor, a reasonable juror could find that being told to return to California if he didn’t want to hear the ‘n-word,’ and having his attention directed toward a noose near his workstation, was a threat on his life or intended to harass him,” the court explained, denying summary judgment on his associational discrimination claim. “It is for a jury to decide whether a reasonable employee in [the plaintiff’s] position would feel the need to quit because this apparent threat created intolerable working conditions such that he was constructively discharged.”

Hostile work environment. As to his hostile work environment claim, the court applied Title VII standards, requiring conduct that was unwelcome, race-related, and severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions. While much of the racist language was not specifically aimed at the employee, the cumulative effect—particularly the noose and comments directed toward him as a white person defending minorities—could support a finding of objective and subjective hostility. The presence of a physical symbol of racial violence (the noose) further supported his claim, the court held, denying summary judgment.

Retaliation. Regarding his retaliation claim, however, the court granted summary judgment. To prevail, the employee needed to show that he engaged in a protected activity, suffered adverse action, and established causation. The court found that he never reported misconduct to management or HR, and his objections to coworkers did not qualify as opposition to an employer’s unlawful practice. Without a protected activity, there could be no retaliation claim.

The case is No. 4:24-cv-00074-DCN.

Judge: Nye, D.

Attorneys: Amanda Elizabeth Ulrich (Casperson Ulrich Dustin) for David Burnett. James Marshall Piotrowski (Piotrowski Durand) for Teton Prestress Concrete, LLC, and Hal Simmons.

Companies: Teton Prestress Concrete, LLC

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation IdahoNews