Search form

Fourth Circuit Sets Employee-Friendly Standard for Title VII Retaliation Claims

By Matthew F. Nieman and Jeremy S. Schneider
  • May 15, 2015

A former waitress’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the employer should go to a jury, the Richmond-based federal appellate court has ruled in a decision that sets a more employee-friendly standard for such claims. Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., No. 13-1473 (4th Cir. May 7, 2015) (en banc). The Court overruled precedent in the circuit by finding a single incident can be severe enough to trigger Title VII’s protection.

The en banc Court, 12-3, vacated a May 2014 panel decision granting summary judgment for the employer. The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.


In 2012, Reya Boyer-Liberto, an African-American former cocktail waitress at Ocean City’s Clarion Resort Fontainebleau Hotel filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging racial hostile work environment and retaliation claims under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. She alleged that within a single 24-hour period in September 2010, a white coworker twice called her a “porch monkey” and her job was threatened after she complained.

In 2014, the District Court granted summary judgment to the employer. On appeal, a Fourth Circuit panel affirmed, holding that although “[t]he ‘porch monkey’ term…was indeed racially derogatory and highly offensive,” the coworker’s use of that term twice in a period of two days in discussions about a single incident “was not, as a matter of law, so severe or pervasive…so as to be legally discriminatory.”

The panel’s decision was vacated by the grant of rehearing by the full appellate court.

Change in Precedent

The entire Court vacated that panel’s decision, making it clear that its opinion “underscore[s] the Supreme Court’s pronouncement…that an isolated incident of harassment, if extremely serious, can create a hostile work environment.” The Court also held that an employee is protected from retaliation “when she reports an isolated incident of harassment that is physically threatening or humiliating, even if a hostile work environment is not engendered by that incident alone.”

The decision also overturns the Circuit’s 2006 ruling in Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp. There, in a case related to comments in the wake of the D.C. snipers’ capture in 2002, the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a hostile work environment claim holding that an offensive comment “was a singular and isolated exclamation” that did not alter the terms and conditions of Jordan’s employment. To be protected conduct, it found that a plaintiff would have to “describe a workplace permeated by racism, by threats of violence, by improper interference with work, or by conduct resulting in psychological harm.”

Since then, Jordan has controlled in the Fourth Circuit. Not anymore. The Court stated explicitly in Boyer-Liberto, “to the extent today’s decision is in conflict withJordan v. Alternative Resources Corp., 458 F. 3d 332 (4th Cir. 2006), Jordan is hereby overruled.”


In his dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer predicted that the holding would “generate widespread litigation over the many offensive workplace comments made everyday that employees find to be humiliating.”

Although it is unlikely that this decision will cause a stampede to the courthouse, employees (or their counsel) may raise claims of retaliation in their discrimination complaints more often than they might have previously. This relaxed standard means that arguments that offensive, yet isolated, conduct is neither severe nor pervasive enough to establish discrimination are no longer as strong. It also brings a higher likelihood that retaliation claims will survive summary judgment and, therefore, proceed to trial (and a jury).

Whether this means more cases will go to trial is uncertain, but when the likelihood of summary judgment goes down, the costs of litigation (and, by extension, potential settlement) certainly go up.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer questions about this or other workplace developments.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

March 20, 2019

New Jersey Prohibits Enforcement of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Settlement Agreements, Other Contracts

March 20, 2019

A sweeping amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) bars enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements and employment contracts, and prohibits the waiver of substantive and procedural rights under the statute. The amendment applies to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or... Read More

February 28, 2019

Portland, Oregon, Bars Discrimination Against Atheists, Agnostics

February 28, 2019

An amendment to the civil rights code of Portland, Oregon, extends protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations to atheists, agnostics, and other “non-believers.” Religious facilities are expressly exempt. The Portland City Code, chapter 23.01, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of... Read More

February 27, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling

February 27, 2019

In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019... Read More

Related Practices