A federal appeals court on September 25 reversed a lower-court win for P.A.M. Transport, sending two former Nashville-based drivers’ hostile work environment claims back for trial and signaling that supervisors’ use of “monkey” and related slurs can, on its own and in context with other treatment, support race-based harassment allegations.
The three-judge Sixth Circuit panel held that a reasonable jury could find the drivers were subjected to severe or pervasive racial harassment and criticized the district court for discounting evidence that included supervisors allegedly calling the drivers “monkey” and “monkey ass,” assigning longer routes and damaged equipment, and using threatening, demeaning language. The court said there is “no benign explanation” for deploying those terms toward Black workers and emphasized that the full workplace context—not just isolated slurs—must be considered. The case returns to the Middle District of Tennessee for further proceedings.
The opinion also undercuts a common defense at summary judgment. Even where a company points to a written anti-harassment policy, the panel said employers must show the policy works in practice—through training, supervisory requirements and prompt corrective action. The record, the court noted, did not demonstrate P.A.M. took reasonable care to prevent and correct the alleged conduct, so the company could not prevail on that affirmative defense at this stage.
Judges Jane B. Stranch (author), R. Guy Cole Jr. (concurring) and Chad A. Readler (concurring in part and in the judgment) comprised the panel. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supported the drivers as amicus and argued at oral argument, underscoring the agency’s view that intraclass harassment—harassment by someone in the same protected class—is actionable under Title VII.
An unusual subplot has quickly attracted industry and legal attention: in a separate concurrence, Judge Readler referenced both ChatGPT and Urban Dictionary in discussing whether “monkey ass” is racially derogatory, while the majority cautioned that ChatGPT “does not independently verify” sources. The exchange has added a tech-era wrinkle to the ruling and sparked broader debate over AI in judicial reasoning.
Why this matters to trucking: The ruling tightens expectations for fleet operators—especially those with dispersed dispatch structures and remote supervisors. First, supervisor speech is the company’s liability problem. Name-calling that invokes historically racist tropes can establish race-based harassment without plaintiffs having to produce elaborate comparator datasets at summary judgment. Second, “neutral” operational decisions—who gets the longest routes, who is stuck with beat-up tractors, who gets yelled at over Qualcomm or phone—can be part of the hostile-environment mosaic when paired with slurs or unequal treatment. That means dispatch logs, message histories and trip assignments are likely to be scrutinized in discovery.
What carriers should do now in the Sixth Circuit (Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan) and beyond:
– Stress-test anti-harassment programs for real-world effectiveness, not just paper compliance. Ensure training reaches line supervisors and front-line dispatchers, and document how complaints are handled and closed.
– Audit assignment data for disparities (route length, wait times, equipment quality, premium pay, scheduling) and identify patterns that could be read as discriminatory when combined with tone or language in supervisor communications.
– Preserve and monitor electronic communications (in-cab systems, SMS, email). Offensive language in these channels is discoverable and can be decisive at summary judgment or trial.
– Rehearse rapid-response protocols: who investigates, how drivers are protected from retaliation, and how findings are communicated and acted upon.
Next steps: The case now returns to the trial court, where P.A.M. faces a fact-intensive proceeding or potential settlement talks with a strengthened plaintiff posture following the appellate rebuke. Legal analysts also note the decision narrows the path for employers to short-circuit similar claims early, raising litigation exposure for carriers that fail to operationalize their policies.
Sources: FreightWaves, Bloomberg Law, Justia, The Daily Beast
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
