124.2 Harassment because of national origin or ancestry

The evidence failed to establish probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated the Act by discriminating against the Complainant on the basis of his race and/or ancestry. The Respondent immediately began an investigation into the Complainant's complaint that he was being harassed when he brought his allegation to the attention of management. The investigation failed to uncover any evidence that employees were pointing to the Complainant and saying he smelled. Even if the Complainant's co-workers had engaged in the conduct that he claims they did, there is no reason to believe they did so because of his race or ancestry. The Respondent employed a significant number of other Hmong employees in the Complainant's work area, and no Hmong employees other than the Complainant had complained of being harassed. Lee v. Packerland Packing Co. (LIRC, 02/16/00)

The Complainant did not prevail on a claim of harassment where he told his supervisor of one occasion on which a co-worker told him that he did not want to have anything to do with Hispanics. A single instance of a statement of this type would not rise to the level of harassment. A finding of liability on the part of the employer could not be premised on its supposed failure to take adequate action in response to once being told of one such statement. Abaunza v. Neenah Foundry (LIRC, 03/30/93), aff’d Winnebago Co. Cir. Ct., 10/27/93.

An employer was not liable for national origin harassment which was sporadic, remote in time and which was carried out by persons who had little or no connection to the employer. Valentin v. Clear Lake Ambulance Serv. (LIRC, 02/26/92).

An employer cannot be found liable for national origin harassment unless the harassment is carried out directly by the employer or, if carried out by co-employees, the employer knows or should reasonably know about the harassment and fails to take reasonable action to prevent it. Valentin v. Clear Lake Ambulance Serv. (LIRC, 02/26/92).

Where the Complainant’s foreman had referred to the Complainant’s fiancee as a “hot tamale” some months before the Complainant was discharged and the Complainant never notified the Respondent that the remark was offensive, the remark was too remote in time and lacking in intent to establish that the Complainant’s discharge was based on his national origin. Molinar v. Larsen Co. (LIRC, 02/04/92).

Slurs about an employee’s national origin which continued for a period of years constituted discriminatory working conditions even where the employee did not notify other supervisors of the remarks because the remarks were made by a management official. Polasik v. Astronautics Corp. (LIRC, 04/08/83).