Background
Jason Gott, a laborer foreman for Baker Concrete Construction, alleged that concrete superintendent Donnie Metcalf subjected him to race-based harassment. Gott, who identifies as Puerto Rican, Mexican, and German, testified that Metcalf called him a “German spic” and used the slur several times in December 2023, including in front of Gott’s crew while undermining Gott’s instruction that a worker wear a safety vest.
Gott complained to Baker on December 21 and filed a written human-resources complaint the next day. Baker separated Gott from Metcalf and investigated, but did not substantiate the complaint or discipline Metcalf. Afterward, Gott was assigned gate duty on several days, though he retained his foreman title, pay, and benefits and returned to concrete-pouring work on January 5, 2024.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District reversed summary judgment on Gott’s R.C. 4112.02(A) hostile-work-environment claim. Viewing the evidence in Gott’s favor, a jury could find the conduct severe or pervasive: the alleged slurs came from a supervisor, occurred publicly before Gott’s subordinates, allegedly undermined his authority during a safety directive, and were part of conduct Gott said extended for months rather than only two days.
The court affirmed summary judgment on the R.C. 4112.02(I) retaliation claim. The temporary gate-duty assignment was within Gott’s job description, routinely rotated among workers, lasted only a handful of days, and did not affect his pay, benefits, title, or material job responsibilities. Embarrassment and perceived loss of prestige alone did not establish a materially adverse employment action.
Key Takeaways
- A supervisor’s racial slur, especially when made before an employee’s subordinates, may create a jury question on a hostile-work-environment claim.
- Courts must consider the full alleged course of harassment, not artificially limit the evidence to a short set of incidents.
- A brief, routine reassignment with no material change in compensation, title, benefits, or duties may not support a retaliation claim.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that the severe-or-pervasive inquiry is contextual, not a simple count of offensive remarks. Publicly using a racial slur to diminish a supervisor’s authority can materially affect the workplace even if the most specifically described incidents occurred over a short period.
The ruling also preserves the distinction between actionable retaliation and temporary workplace assignments that cause subjective embarrassment but do not materially disadvantage a reasonable employee.