Get 40% Off
🔥 This hedge fund gained 26.16% in the last month. Get their top stocks with our free stock ideas tool.See stock ideas

GM employee's racial bias lawsuit is revived over NY plant where nooses were displayed

Published 09/07/2023, 12:53 PM
Updated 09/07/2023, 01:01 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The new GM logo is seen on the facade of the General Motors headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., March 16, 2021.   REUTERS/Rebecca Cook/File Photo
GM
-

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - General Motors (NYSE:GM) was ordered by a federal appeals court on Thursday to defend against claims by a Black safety supervisor, who said she endured years of racism and sexism at an upstate New York plant where other workers displayed Confederate flags and nooses.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a trial judge erred in dismissing Billie Banks' hostile work environment, disparate treatment and retaliation lawsuit against the automaker.

Banks sued over conditions at GM's components plant in Lockport, New York, where she began working in 1996.

She said she and other Black employees were called racial slurs, including one particularly offensive epithet, and that she saw Confederate flags on employees' vehicles and clothing. Three nooses were placed around Black employees' workstations, she said.

Banks said that after she took leave because of work stress and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in late 2013, GM retaliated by suspending her disability benefits and demoting her upon her return. She sued in November 2014.

In a 74-page decision, Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the evidence suggested "pervasive and long-term sex and race-based animosity" that a reasonable jury could find created a hostile work environment.

Chin said use of the epithet, "probably the most offensive word in English," and even one placement of a noose, "imbued as it is with historical gravity as a symbol and tool of actual violence," supported Banks' hostile environment claim.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

The appeals court also found sufficient evidence that bias and an intent to retaliate were factors in Banks' demotion.

It returned the case to U.S. District Judge William Skretny in Buffalo, New York.

GM declined to comment.

The Detroit-based automaker had said many incidents that Banks complained about were too old, and the "totality of the circumstances" did not show a hostile work environment.

Banks' lawyer did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Banks took disability leave again in January 2016 and as of last month remained on leave.

The EEOC supported Banks' appeal. In March, the agency sued Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) after nooses were reported at the oil company's complex in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The case is Banks v General Motors LLC et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-2640.

Latest comments

She [the plaintiff] has been ON LEAVE SINCE 2016 ?!??!!
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.