Truck Drivers Show Racial Harassment Due to the Use of Epithet

Takeaway: The objectionable nature of a racial epithet isn't obviated by the speaker belonging to the same race as the person they are addressing.

Two Black truck drivers could show racial harassment based on their supervisors' use of the epithet "monkey."

P.A.M. Transport is a trucking company with approximately 2,600 employees. The plaintiffs were Black truck drivers employed by P.A.M. Transport and stationed at the company's Whites Creek location in Nashville.  

The first plaintiff started as a local driver. The second plaintiff was first hired as an over-the-road driver, transporting freight across the country. In April 2019, the second plaintiff was transferred, at his request, to a local driver position based out of the Whites Creek location, where he continued to work until April 2020. At Whites Creek, both plaintiffs were under the supervision of a Black driver manager, who reported to a white operations manager.

According to the plaintiffs, P.A.M. Transport required them to work more hours than their counterparts who were not Black for the same pay. One plaintiff testified that he was assigned, relative to his co-workers, lengthier routes with longer wait times, which caused him to work nearly 70 hours per week. He would complain about his longer work hours directly to his supervisors, who would tell him "that's part of it" and "just do the job." 

Toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity

The second plaintiff testified that he often had to drive two loads per day to Horse Cave, Ky. — a two-hour, one-way drive from Whites Creek — whereas another local driver, who was white, only had to drive one load per day to Horse Cave. He also claimed that white drivers received vacation time and holiday pay, whereas he did not.

The plaintiffs alleged that their supervisors often targeted them with pejorative remarks, such as the term "monkey." The plaintiffs testified that the supervisors would speak to them in a hostile and demeaning manner, criticize them, scream and curse at them, and threaten their employment and compensation.  

The plaintiffs claimed that they repeatedly reported the supervisors’ conduct to a driver liaison and to managers in person, by telephone, and via the system installed in trucks, but nothing was done to stop the misconduct.  

The first plaintiff became frustrated and voluntarily resigned in April 2019. He departed in good standing. The other plaintiff, however, was fired for refusing loads and leaving in the middle of a shift, which he denied doing. While he had received mixed performance reviews, he had never been formally disciplined prior to termination.

Checklist: Employee Termination

In March 2021, the plaintiffs sued P.A.M. Transport, asserting claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act.  

P.A.M. Transport moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the district court granted. The plaintiffs appealed only the dismissal of their racial harassment claims to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

On appeal, P.A.M. Transport claimed that the plaintiffs were improperly conflating the terms "monkey" and a cruder term to rely upon numerous case decisions discussing the word "monkey" as a racist epithet. The 6th Circuit found this argument to be frivolous.  

The 6th Circuit also found that, contrary to the reasoning of the district court, the racist nature of the term "monkey" was not obviated because one of the two alleged speakers was Black. It reasoned that Title VII can be violated by members of the same race or sex as the victim of discrimination.  

The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove their prima-facie case. It ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish a basis for personal knowledge about the race of the proffered comparators.  

The 6th Circuit disagreed, overturning the district court's grant of summary judgment on the racial harassment claim and instructing the claim to proceed to trial.

Smith v. P.A.M. Transport Inc., 6th Cir., No. 24-5549 (Sept. 25, 2025).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.