The Use of the Word 'Boy' May Be A Racial Epithet and Used As Proof of Racial Bias

On February 21, 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. that the word "boy," without any words modifying it, can be a racial epithet depending on the context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage.

The case arose when two African-American superintendents at a poultry plant operated by Tyson Foods sought promotions to shift manager, but two white males were selected instead. The Tyson plant manager who made the disputed promotion decisions had referred on some occasions to each of the two African-American superintendents as "boy."

When the case went to trial before a jury in Alabama, the jury found race discrimination and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found sufficient evidence to support a verdict in favor of one of the two plaintiffs, but not the other, and further held that the evidence did not support the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury or the award of punitive damages. As part of its ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that the use of the word "boy" alone, without any modifier such as "black" or "white," is not evidence of discrimination.

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeals court made two mistakes in reaching its decision. First, the appeals court had held that a plant manager's use of the word "boy" when referring to the two African-American employees was not sufficient evidence of racial bias without the use of a modifier (e.g., "black"). The Supreme Court ruled that the appeals court was wrong because the speaker's meaning behind the word "may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage." This opinion is a useful reminder to employers that insensitive remarks by decision makers may be powerful evidence of discrimination.

The case is a reminder of the perils of the subtleties of language. By its dictionary meaning, the word "boy" in most contexts is not discriminatory, or even insulting. In the context of use by a white manager about an African-American subordinate, in the South, the word may become an epithet, and was evidently understood that way by the jury in Ash with little difficulty. Similar difficulties arise in sexual harassment cases and age discrimination case with the ordinarily innocent words "baby" and "mama" and "old boy" or "old man." Context is everything. For employers, this ruling underscores the need for managers and supervisors to be properly trained to avoid language with any inference of bias against members of a protected class.

For any questions regarding this issue, or for training needs, please contact Kevin Pokorny of HR-OneSource’s at 515-221-1718.