Alleged Use of the N-word at Work Leads to Hostile Work Environment Claim – But No Liability
By Deborah J. Hopkins, March 10, 2026
In allegations of workplace EEO harassment, the details matter. Consider a recent EEOC decision, Terrance S. v. USPS, EEOC App. No. 2025004452 (Dec. 15, 2025), where the complainant, a Carrier Technician in Garland, TX, alleged he was harassed on the basis of race (African American) when his Acting Supervisor, an African American female, called him the N-word on three separate occasions. Id. at 1.
According to the case:
The incidents stemmed from Complainant insisting Acting Supervisor complete some union paperwork, challenging his route that day, and following Acting Supervisor around the postal facility. The AJ heard testimony and evidence from Complainant and two other employees that Acting Supervisor stated one time to Complainant after Complainant got in Acting Supervisor’s personal space, “n—a [racial slur], get out of my face.”
Alternatively, Acting Supervisor testified this was false and stated as an African American female with three sons, she would never have used that racial slur. Other witnesses supported the claim Complainant was harassing Acting Supervisor and did not hear the alleged racial slur. Acting Supervisor stated it was Complainant who used racial slurs, not her.
Id. at 5-6.
A quick review of foundational law: To establish a prima facie case of harassment, the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence:
- that he is a member of a statutorily protected class;
- that he was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to his protected class;
- that the harassment complained of was based on his protected class;
- that the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with his work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and
- that there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer.
Id. at 4.
Unless the unwelcome conduct is very severe, a single incident or a group of isolated incidents will generally not rise to the level of creating a hostile work environment. See James v. HHS, EEOC Req. No. 05940327 (Sept. 20, 1994).
Back to the case. After receiving the complaint, the agency:
- Assigned Acting Supervisor to a different facility during the investigation;
- Issued Acting Supervisor a Letter of Instruction;
- Gave Complainant an Investigation Outcome Letter;
- Delivered a standup talk to employees “about the ‘n’ word and why it’s not ok to use slurs at work” and dispersed a document entitled, “Dignity and Respect: Watch your Language”; and
- When Acting Supervisor returned to the original work facility, management placed her in her regular carrier position and relieved her of her Acting Supervisor duties.
Id. at 5-6.
The EEOC held that, while both sides presented compelling testimony at hearing, because the agency took immediate action to address the incident and prevent future incidents of the same nature, there was no basis to impute liability for the Acting Supervisor’s actions, even if true. Id. at 8. Therefore, the complainant did not prevail on his harassment claim.
Other cases involving the use of the N-word have resulted in a finding of agency liability (see, e.g., Whidbee v. Navy, EEOC App. No. 01A40193 (Mar. 31, 2005)(agency subjected the complainant to a hostile work environment when a supervisor used the N-word in the complainant’s presence and at least once in reference to the complainant). As we said at the beginning, the details matter. hopkins@feltg.com
Related training
- EEOC Law Week, Mar. 23-27, 2026
- Stay up to Date: Hostile Work Environment Harassment in 2026, April 16
- EEO Counselor and Investigator Refresher Training, June 3-4
- Advanced EEO: Navigating Complex Issues, June 23-25
The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
