Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
614 F.3d 1132 (2008)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Ranee Tademy (plaintiff) worked for Union Pacific Railroad (defendant). Between 1996 and 2003, Tademy experienced multiple acts of racism. Tademy saw the word “n****r” written on his locker and bathroom walls; saw racist cartoons on a bulletin board; and overheard another employee referring to a manager as “F***king Kunta Kinte.” Tademy reported each incident, but they went without investigation. Once, when Tademy arrived to a shift five minutes late, David Cagle asked Tademy, “What time does this job go to work, boy?” Union Pacific responded with only a 30-day paid leave of absence for Cagle. Subsequently, Tademy saw an email from a manager’s account posted on a bulletin board. The email was sent to several employees telling them to “Keep an eye on the slaves, seriously.” Union Pacific investigated and found that an employee had hacked into the manager’s account and sent the email. Union Pacific fired the employee but later reinstated him. Finally, Tademy saw a noose hung in one of the railroad’s shanties. Tademy did not return to work after seeing this. Tademy was diagnosed with major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorder and placed on disability retirement. Tademy sued Union Pacific for maintaining a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The district court granted Union Pacific summary judgment. Tademy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Henry, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.