It is reported that a US federal appeals panel has upheld a USD 1.2 million award to a six former or current black employees in a racial discrimination case against the Nucor Corporation.

A federal jury in Little Rock in 2009 awarded the damages to five Arkansans and one man from Tennessee after finding the six had worked in a racially hostile environment. The six had argued in their lawsuit that Nucor had denied them promotions and training opportunities and tolerated the sale of Confederate flag style do rags at the company store in Blytheville.

The plaintiffs also said they endured racial comments broadcast on the plant’s radio system and e mail, that there was racial graffiti on the company’s equipment and bathrooms, and that Confederate flags and nooses were displayed in areas where everyone could see them.

The jury concluded that Nucor was aware of the harassment and failed to prevent it from occurring.

Among its arguments on appeal, Nucor said that US District Judge Mr Susan Webber Wright erred when allowing into evidence a complaint filed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in 1995, and a 2002 letter from Nucor employees to the EEOC.

The three judge panel of the US Circuit Court of Appeals in St Louis affirmed Webber's decision.

Appeals Court Judge Mr Steven Colloton of Iowa said in the court ruling that "The evidence was admitted to show that Nucor had notice of several serious complaints of racial harassment that it failed to investigate or redress."

The company also argued that testimony by a maintenance employee concerning racial harassment he experienced at Nucor was irrelevant and that Webber erred by allowing it into evidence.

The employee testified he began seeing Confederate flags at the plant in the late 1980s and found several pictures of monkeys in his work area beginning around 2005.

The appeals court rejected Nucor's argument, saying that evidence of harassment of nonparties can be probative in a hostile work environment case, because it can bolster the plaintiff’s credibility and assist the jury in evaluating the company's motives as it determines the appropriateness of punitive damages.

The appeals court decision said that "Whether this probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice is a fact intensive question that must be answered by the district court in the course of trial." It added that Mr Wright did not abuse her discretion by admitting the testimony.

(Sourced from www.swtimes.com)