Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D. Md.: Black employee subjected to racial epithets, coworker’s gun, advances hostile environment claim, (Jan 21, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The reoccurrence of harassment “is not necessarily imputed to an employer simply because remedial action turns out to have been ‘ineffective in stopping the harassment.’”

Despite an employer’s thorough investigation into a Black employee’s complaint his coworkers regularly used racial epithets and brandished guns to intimidate him, a federal court in Maryland found fact disputes about the promptness of that investigation and whether it and a second investigation into his subsequent complaint about a shotgun shell in a truck he had been assigned to drive were reasonably calculated to end the harassment. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment against his Title VII and state-law hostile work environment claims. His retaliation claim also survived the employer’s motion (Nelson v. Crane Service Co., Inc., No. 24-cv-766-ABA (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2026)).

Get tougher skin. On his first day of employment with the mobile crane services company in December 2022, the employee alleged that a white coworker mumbled the n-word while walking past him. He claimed he reported the incident to his supervisor, who said he would “take care of it.” Two days later, he attempted to introduce himself to another white coworker who looked at him in disgust, lifted up his hoodie, and flashed his gun. He again reported the incident to his supervisor who, this time, purportedly told him to get “tougher skin.” When he complained to HR a day later about race discrimination and harassment, he was told “We don’t have a weapons policy, no worries have a good time today.”

In January, according to the employee, a white coworker told him to grab the “tag line,” a rope that looked like a miniature noose. When he retrieved it, another coworker asked, “who told the black boy to get a rope?” The employee claimed a supervisor also referred to him as a “cookie” and his supervisor compared him to a monkey.

Written complaint and investigation. The employee submitted a written complaint on January 31 to his union representative who then emailed the company president. A subsequent investigation, in which 23 employees were interviewed, revealed that employees used racial slurs in the workplace and brought guns to work. In response, the company held a mandatory training for all employees and distributed an updated anti-discrimination/harassment policy and a new firearms policy prohibiting guns in the workplace. The employee subsequently emailed the company, expressing his appreciation for their investigation.

Shotgun shell. A week later, the employee discovered a shotgun shell on the drivers’ side rear floor of the truck he had been assigned to drive that day. He complained that it was left there to intimidate him due to his race, stated that he no longer felt safe there, and asked to be reassigned. After a quick investigation, the company concluded that the shell had not been left in the truck intentionally and that it did not violate the new firearms policy. When the employee did not come to work the following day, the company determined that he voluntarily quit. Later that same morning, he emailed the company stating that he was resigning.

Hostile work environment claim. Moving for summary judgment on the employee’s claim he was subjected to a race-based hostile work environment, the company argued that the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive. Disagreeing, the court noted that the employee claimed that his coworkers and supervisors used the n-word and other racial epithets on almost a daily basis, that one coworker brandished a gun at him while looking at him with disgust, and that his coworkers made him get a rope that looked like a noose and laughed at him for holding it. Further, this all took place during the two-month span he worked for the company.

Remedial action. The company next argued that any harassment the employee experienced could not be attributed to it because it conducted an extensive investigation and revised and created policies in response. While the court agreed that a reasonable jury could find the company’s first investigation was reasonably calculated to end the harassment, it found fact issues as to the promptness of that investigation.

The employee claimed he complained verbally to his supervisor and to HR in December, but no action was taken until he complained on January 31 to his union representative. Only then did the company initiate an investigation. For its part, the company argued that it had no notice of the alleged harassment until the employee’s written complaint to the union representative. Here, the court found fact issues as to whether the employee put the company on notice in December. Because a reasonable jury might conclude that the seven-week delay between the employee’s December complaints and its February investigation was unreasonable, the court found genuine disputes as to the promptness of the investigation.

Reasonably calculated? As to whether the investigation was reasonably calculated to end the harassment, the court noted that not only was it extensive and thorough, but also it ended in revisions to the company’s discrimination and harassment policy and the creation of a new firearms policy. Indeed, said the court, the employee thanked the company for its investigation. In subsequently arguing, however, that the investigation was not adequate, the employee pointed out that no one had been disciplined as a result. While the court found this relevant to the adequacy of the company’s response, the new policies it adopted were also relevant.

Regarding his contention the shotgun shell incident and the company’s reaction to his complaint showed that any action it took was ineffective, the court found genuine fact disputes regarding how the shell ended up in the truck and whether it got there in a way that showed the investigation and policy changes were not reasonably calculated to bring an end to the harassment. Though the company concluded that the shell most likely ended in the truck because a prior regular user was one of the several employees who frequently shoots clay pigeons for recreation, the court noted there was no explanation as to who that person was, when that person last used the truck, why the company was confident that was the source of the shell, and how that particular truck ended up assigned to the employee on that day.

The court also found genuine fact disputes arising from the fact the employee alleged the shell’s presence in the truck violated not only the company’s newly adopted firearms policy but also its anti-discrimination policy. The employee told his union representative that he believed the shell was a violation of both policies, but the union representative’s email only mentioned a concern about the weapons policy. The employee also told a company VP he believed the shell was a violation of the anti-discrimination policy.

Unlike the company’s prior multi-day investigation, however, the VP this time emailed the employee within approximately four hours that the investigation had been completed but only mentioned having reviewed the weapons policy to determine that “ammunition by itself is not a weapon nor an explosive, so there is no policy violation.” While to the court it appeared as if both investigations likely were sufficiently prompt and thorough to have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment, it pointed out that it was required to construe all evidence in the employee’s favor. And in that light, a reasonable jury could conclude that the investigations were not reasonably calculated to end the harassment, particularly in light of the dispute about the employee’s December complaints and, to some extent, the disputes surrounding the handling of the shotgun shell incident. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on the employee’s discrimination and harassment claims.

Constructive discharge. As to the employee’s constructive discharge claim, a reasonable jury, said the court, could find he reached the threshold for “intolerability” based on his testimony that he experienced near daily racial epithets either directed at him or said in his presence, that employees brandished their weapons at him, and that, after the shotgun shell incident, the company refused to transfer him to another location even though he expressed a fear for his life if he were not reassigned. Thus, this claim also survived the company’s summary judgment motion.

Retaliation. Nor was the company entitled to summary judgment on his retaliation claim. Though the company argued he was not subjected to an adverse employment action because he resigned, his resignation letter stated that he quit due to “intolerable work conditions and or treatment.” Noting again that there were genuine fact disputes to permit his constructive discharge theory to proceed to a trial, the court denied summary judgment on this claim as well.

The case is No. 24-cv-766-ABA.

Judge: Abelson, A.

Attorneys: Robert Wesley Thayer Tucci (Zipin, Amster, & Greenberg) for Carl Nelson. Jake B. Mitchell (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman) for Crane Service Co., Inc.

Companies: Crane Service Co., Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge MarylandNews GCNNews