Lynching Jokes and Slave Roles: Racial Harassment on the Job

By Deborah J. Hopkins, April 22, 2025

Key facts:

  • Forcing an African American employee to role play as a slave during a Juneteenth celebration was unwelcome conduct based on race and color.
  • Comments about lynching and other stereotypes also contributed to a hostile work environment.
  • When a supervisor or manager engages in repeated harassment of a subordinate, the agency is usually liable.

Sometimes I read a case and it involves such blatant misconduct that I can’t believe an agency would litigate rather than settle. Such a case is Anne C. v. VA, EEOC App. No. 2022003036  (Jan. 31, 2023).

The complainant, a GS-11 Social Worker in the agency’s Homeless Program in Kansas City, Missouri, alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race (African American/Mixed), color (Dark), religion (Christian), and disability (Multiple Sclerosis), when:

  1. Since 2013, the complainant was assigned an unfair number of cases that included cases based solely on race or religion;
  2. In 2018, the complainant’s first-line supervisor referred to the complainant as “girl”;
  3. In August 2020, the complainant was not selected for the position of a GS-11 Social Worker;
  4. On various dates, multiple coworkers subjected the complainant to racial slurs, disparaging remarks, and a comment about a past “lynching”;
  5. In June 2020, the complainant was forced to participate in an event where racial slurs and stereotypes were made, and she was required to roleplay a “slave”;
  6. On August 6, 2020, the complainant was notified by her second-line supervisor that the Program Manager made disparaging remarks about the complainant’s physical appearance and lisp; and
  7. On various dates, the complainant was denied training opportunities.

Id. at 2.

The agency accepted claims 1, 3, and 7 as independent claims, and also accepted the complainant’s discriminatory harassment claim for investigation. The Final Agency Decision (FAD) determined there was no discrimination or harassment, so the complainant appealed to the EEOC.

The Commission found the agency “proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for claims 1, 3, and 7,” id. at 3, but also contradicted a number of the agency’s findings on the race and color harassment claims. In fact, the Commission held, the “Complainant’s workplace was permeated with discriminatory ridicule, insult and microaggressions by multiple Agency employees that, in cumulative effect, were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment for Complainant that altered the conditions of her employment.” Id. at 7.

According to the Commission, the following incidents were the cause of a hostile work environment based on race and color:

  • A supervisor repeatedly referred to the complainant as “girl,”
  • The complainant was subjected to comments about lynching and ropes,
  • The complainant was subjected to racially insensitive epithets at a work meeting,
  • The complainant was forced to act as a slave in a Juneteenth program, and
  • The complainant was subjected to comments based on racial stereotypes related to the Juneteenth celebration.

The Commission found the agency liable and ordered corrective action. Additionally, in a footnote the EEOC specifically noted improper actions by the agency’s EEO Manager in communications with the investigator. Id. at 6. We can’t stress this enough – the integrity of the EEO process from start to finish is paramount. [email protected]

Related training: