Workplace language policies often raise challenging questions, particularly when an employee uses a racial slur when they are part of that race. Employers must balance maintaining a respectful environment with understanding the context in which certain words are used. The case of Murray v. Verizon Wireless LLC, No. 24-273 (U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, 10/8/25), highlights this issue, examining whether an African American employee’s self-directed use of a racial slur at work could constitute discriminatory termination.

Murray is an African American male who has worked for various Verizon stores since September 2017. On June 1, 2023, after an apparently frustrating but fairly innocuous conversation with a co-worker, Murray walked towards the front doors of the store and commented under his breath, using the “n-word” twice. An African American coworker reported this to the HR Business Partner, who conducted an investigation which consisted of multiple interviews, including two in which Plaintiff admitted he used the “n-word” twice at work.  Murray was terminated as of July 12, 2023, and the reason for his termination was the use of the “n-word” at work.

No other incidents of an employee using the “n-word” have occurred at the Verizon store in question or any Verizon store in which Murray worked from August 2021 through November 2024.  Discovery found that 13 employees for Defendant were terminated for confirmed use the “n-word.”  Of those employees, four identified as Hispanic/Latino, five identified as Black or African American, one identified as Asian, two identified as white, and one did not identify with a racial group. Three additional African American employees had substantiated uses of the “n-word” during that same timeframe, but received final written warnings, rather than termination.

Murray filed suit for discriminatory termination of employment.  The court identified the standard to prove disparate treatment under Pennsylvania law: 

The plaintiff “must be able to prove: “(1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances that raise an inference of unlawful discrimination.”

Otherwise, the termination may be lawful as Pennsylvania is an at-will employment state.

In the case before the court, Muray had to prove that the actions taken were based upon racial or ethnic animus for African American employees.  The undisputed and stipulated facts were that Murray did indeed use the “n-word” at work and that was the reason he was terminated. Murray did not present any evidence that any of the decisionmakers involved in his termination made racists comments, treated employees of one race better than another, or otherwise harbored any prejudiced beliefs.  The court pointed out that Title VII does not require an employer to treat all employees the exact same way but that the “differences in treatment were not be based upon a protected attribute.” 

The court also stated that Title VII does not permit employees to use any slur that applies to their own protected characteristics.  As it pointed out, “[t]he results of such a rule would be impossible to apply. How is a manager to know whether the person who just used an anti-Semitic slur is Jewish, or who used a homophobic slur is homosexual? The questioning required to get to the bottom of those sorts of determinations would be sure to lead to more discrimination, not less.”

On the other hand, the courts have been inconsistent as to whether the use of inappropriate slurs rises to the level of discrimination.  In a recent case in Michigan, the court ruled that single use does not rise to the level of discriminatory behavior. 

The simple takeaway for HR is to ensure that there is a policy about inappropriate language and that the policy should be consistently applied regardless of who the speaker is.

Source: HR Dive 10/10/25