<<back
MORGAN v. AMTRAK
JURY AWARDS $500,000 TO AMTRAK EMPLOYEE
IN FEDERAL RACIAL HARASSMENT CASE
On May 27, 2004, a federal jury in San Francisco rendered a $500,000 verdict in favor of Abner Morgan, Jr., an African-American electrician who suffered racial discrimination, racial harassment and retaliation by Amtrak’s Oakland Yard managers.
Mr. Morgan worked at Amtrak's Oakland maintenance yard from 1990 until 1995. During his employment at the yard, he endured a racially hostile environment created by his supervisors. He alleged that Amtrak discriminated against him and numerous other African-American employees in training opportunities and work assignments, and singled out anyone who complained about the unfair treatment with harsh disciplinary actions.
Mr. Morgan complained repeatedly about the discriminatory treatment and hostile work environment. He and numerous witnesses testified about the frequent use of racial slurs by Amtrak’s top managers at the yard. A former Amtrak manager testified that Amtrak’s managers regularly enjoyed watching one of the top managers perform the shuffle butt ni??er dance in the office. Another co-worker testified that he was sanctioned when he refused to assist Amtrak in its efforts to fire Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan also alleged that Amtrak failed to investigate his complaints and retaliated against him for making such complaints. He brought suit following his termination from Amtrak in 1996 for allegedly threatening a supervisor. In addition to seeking compensatory damages, Mr. Morgan sought punitive damages to deter Amtrak from continuing its discriminatory practices.
Mr. Morgan’s allegations against Amtrak’s western operations are similar to discrimination charges Amtrak has faced in class action suits on the West and the East Coasts. In November 1999, non-management African-American employees sued Amtrak for discrimination in training and promotions, hiring and discipline, as well as a hostile work environment. Plaintiffs in that case alleged that Amtrak has “maximum tolerance for racist behavior.” The case settled in July 1999 for $8 million. Another class action involving track workers was settled for $16 million.
Following a jury verdict for Amtrak in 1998, Attorney Pamela Y. Price persuaded the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to reverse the verdict and apply the continuing violation doctrine. (Morgan v. Amtrak, 232 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2002).)
The Ninth Circuit held that the evidence at the 1998 trial established “a series or pattern of discrimination, retaliation and hostile environment that started nearly contemporaneously with Morgan’s employment and continued throughout his tenure.” The Court directed federal district court Judge Susan Illston to allow the jury to consider all of the evidence of a hostile environment and retaliation which occurred throughout Mr. Morgan’s employment as part of a continuing violation.
As a result, Mr. Morgan’s victory happens only after the jury was allowed to consider all the evidence, and the totality of the circumstances, which would demonstrate a racially hostile work environment. In response to the earlier Ninth Circuit decision, Mr. Morgan stated that "it's not about the money, it's about how people should be respected and treated, how they would want to be treated."
Attorney Price argued the case before the United States Supreme Court in January 2002 for the preservation of the continuing violation doctrine in employment discrimination and harassment cases. (National Passenger Railroad Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 112 S.Ct. 1516 (2002).) She was accompanied to the Supreme Court by famed civil rights attorney Howard Moore and Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center's Director of Litigation William C. McNeill. To hear the oral argument at the Supreme Court, Click Here.
This is one of the most important cases in employment law to come before the United States Supreme Court for two reasons: (1) Amtrak was asking the Supreme Court to sanction the overtly racist behavior of its managerial employees; and (2) this decision affects employer liability for discrimination and harassment beyond the 180/300 day charge-filing period set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The decision has had a dramatic effect on the private and government employment sector because it will determine liability under a variety of statutes for discrimination and harassment where the basis is race, color, sex, disability, age, national origin or religion.
Following the jury verdict, a jubilant Pamela Y. Price stated, "It's been a long time coming, but we’re delighted that the bright light of justice has led Mr. Morgan to victory!"
Mr. Morgan was represented at trial by Pamela Y. Price and Anthony Prince of Price And Associates and Bill McNeill, Jory Steele, and Shelley Gregory of the Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center.
top
