A federal appeals court has reopened a racial harassment lawsuit against P.A.M. Transport, reversing a lower-court win the carrier secured last year and sending the case back for further proceedings. In a precedential opinion issued September 25, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that a jury could find two former drivers endured a racially hostile work environment at the company’s Whites Creek, Tennessee, operation.
The panel—authored by Judge Jane B. Stranch, with Judge Eric E. Murphy Readler concurring in part and in the judgment—said testimony that supervisors called drivers “monkey” or “monkey ass,” coupled with allegations of unequal load assignments, time demands and equipment, created triable issues under Title VII, Section 1981 and Tennessee law. The court faulted the district judge’s May 2024 summary judgment ruling for discounting those slurs and other evidence and held that management’s alleged conduct, if credited by a jury, could be severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions.
The Sixth Circuit also noted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission weighed in as amicus and participated in argument, underscoring the case’s broader significance for workplace standards. The decision applies across the Sixth Circuit’s footprint, which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan, meaning fleets operating in those states should expect closer scrutiny of how dispatchers, driver managers and local supervisors communicate with drivers and allocate routes.
What this means for trucking operations: the court’s framing makes clear that racially charged language by supervisors—regardless of the speaker’s race—can support a hostile-environment claim. That elevates the compliance burden on day-to-day front-line leadership in trucking, where directives often flow via phone and in-cab messaging. Carriers should assume that Qualcomm or other ELD/messaging logs, route records and equipment assignment data will be examined as potential corroboration in litigation and tune their retention policies accordingly.
The ruling does not decide the merits, but it changes leverage. By vacating summary judgment, the court puts P.A.M. Transport back on a litigation track that could lead to trial or settlement, with potential exposure under Section 1981 that includes punitive damages and no damages cap—key risk variables for any fleet. Insurers and general counsel will likely revisit training and auditing for driver managers, emphasizing: consistent route and equipment assignment criteria; prompt, documented responses to complaints; and zero-tolerance enforcement around slurs and demeaning language.
Context from legal trackers in the past 72 hours aligns with the appellate panel’s core holdings. Bloomberg Law reported the court reversed the district court and found a jury could credit the drivers’ descriptions of racial harassment, while the official opinion—designated for publication—details the evidence the panel deemed sufficient to proceed. Together, they signal a higher likelihood that disputes over dispatcher-driver interactions and scheduling equity will be resolved by juries rather than tossed at summary judgment.
Bottom line for motor carriers: audit the culture where freight gets moved—dispatch rooms, driver lounges, messaging threads. The Sixth Circuit’s published decision is a clear reminder that the language managers use and the fairness of day-to-day assignments are no longer “soft issues”; they are litigation-critical facts a jury may soon evaluate.
Sources: FreightWaves, Bloomberg Law, Justia
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
