First off Trudie's offhand comment about how work can't get done because all of the venting etc, is a bit too glib. Its perfectly easy to lace normal business communications with any manner bigotted language.

Secondly, bigots rarely like having their views challenged. Trudy's advice is one that is almost guaranteed to have the Writer be labled as a "trouble maker" or someone who cannot be trusted.

The best advice would have been threefold

1. Contact the local or state branch of the ACLU to get advice on exactly what your rights as an employee are.
2. Start a notebook (one you buy personally and not one from the office supply cabinet) in which you log the offensive comments. If they are too varied to log all of them, log the worst ones - by date, by time, by witness and as verbatim as possible
3. When an obviously egregious comment comes up, explictly, clearly but respectfully and defferentially say "I'm uncomfortable with language like that", and log that in your notebook.

Do this for a month and then take the notebook back to the ACLU. You may very well have found a way of funding your dreams.

First of all, it's "Prudie," not Trudy. *wink*

DOH!! Dunno why I confused that.

about one more day, and in at will states, like most of the nation, you don't need a reason to fire someone.

KA

other than that, good advice.

Well the comment of "I'm not comfortable with that language" is very unlikely to get you fired. Ridiculed and chewed out yes, but not fired.

Then if you get fired once you bring suit, you may well be eligble for Whistle Blower protection. Again, she needs real legal advice here - from the local ACLU or similar. Not the EEOC - at least not initially since that starts wheels rolling.

degsme:

.....

Do this for a month and then take the notebook back to the ACLU. You may very well have found a way of funding your dreams.

There is no law against people saying racist things. You won't win any lawsuits by documenting their racist speech. Racist speech only becomes significant if there is actual discriminations in hiring or promotions. In that case the ongoing pattern of racist speech can be brought up to establish motive.

It's just like hate crime. If you say "I hate niggers"- it's perfectly legal. However if you say "I hate niggers" in the midst of pummeling a black man with a baseball bat- then that utterance can be used to establish a racist motive and you can be convicted of a hate crime.

We probably could have understood that hypo without actually using the term, but whatever.

There is such a thing as creating a hostile work environment in relation to sexual harrassment.  I am not aware of any case in which a white person has recovered anything for having to listen to racially charged language at work that wasn't about her race (or, for example, gender-based insults about the opposite gender).  That doesn't mean it's impossible, but as KA said most states are at-will states and unless the LW is experiencing some sort of discrimination herself she is unlikely to get anywhere.  It has to cost her (or him, I lost track) some money in the form of lost wages or a lost promotion opportunity before she has much of a case at all.  Rather than spend time writing down what everyone says, that time would be better spent looking for a new job.

It is illegal to be discriminatory as an employer. Any third party can bring suit. And discriminatory language from a supervisor can be considered to create a "hostile work atmosphere".

An employee can say "I hate niggers" - but if

1. The employer tolerates it in the workplace
2. The employee is in a supervisory role

Then it very much exposes the employer to a lawsuit if that isn't reprimanded.

Now for the last 8 years, the EEOC has largely been eviscerated in its ability to bring suit. But I doubt that will be true for the next 8

Not every third party has standing to sue an employer.  While it's true that racial discrimination in employment is not legal, you're oversimplifying the elements of such a claim.  This snippet from a case explains what a plaintiff must prove to recover anything on a title 7 hostile work environment claim:

A plaintiff may establish a Title VII violation based on race
discrimination creating a hostile work environment. In order to
establish a hostile working environment claim, Ramsey must prove:
(1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she was subjected to
unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on
race; (4) the harassment complained of affected a term, condition,
or privilege of employment; (5) the employer knew or should have
known of the harassment in question and failed to take prompt
remedial action. Celestine v. Petroleos de Venezuella SA, 266 F.3d
343, 353(5th Cir. 2001); Jones v. Flagship Int'l, 793 F.2d 714,
719-720 (5th Cir. 1986). For harassment on the basis of race to
affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment, as required
to support a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, it
must be "'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions
of the victim's employment and create an abusive working
environment.'" Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, quoting, Meritor Savings
Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986).  

Here's the link to the whole case: <link>

I'm not aware of any case that supports your contention that "any third party" can bring a claim.  You must be a member of the protected class (which the LW is not) and you must have suffered harrassment yourself.  While there may be state or local statutes that give the LW more power (doubtful in a southern state), under federal law the LW must establish that s/he is a member of the protected class to make it past a motion to dismiss.

Degs:

The LW is white. His/her employers are white. If he/she objects to the comments her (screw the gender neutral stuff) employer can fire her and ADMIT it's because she doesn't share his racial attitudes and under current law she has no case.

It's not illegal to fire someone of your own race who does not share your racial attitudes, or who doesn't like your "jokes". Maybe it should be, but it ain't. There's no whistle to blow here.

Well there are two issues here

1. Does LW have personal standing to sue. This requires that she be one of the "protected classes" - but does NOT require her to be one of the TARGETED classes.
   
   As a woman, LW IS a member of one of the protected classes, and its not unreasonable for her to conclude that if her employers are hostile to minorities in the absence of those minorities, that they are equally hostile to women in their absence.
   
   Thus their behaviour is indicative of a GENERALLY hostile work environment for all the protected classes
2. The EEOC can sue even if LW herself cannot. And the EEOC offers rewards for employees that do come forward and report hostile work environments.

It IS ILLEGAL to fire someone who reports your DISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDES to the EEOC. That is "retaliation".

These are the kind of facts I love Americas for. Those who want to destroy that land or turn that land into the kind of slave/tribal culture they grew up in are satanic. All my prayers for this place and the people (the non-discriminatory / broadminded ones)

Most probably, if I was in America, I wouldnt have caught up that disease (of racism). What would you catch from an environment which is sick, anyway? I am so glad to be out of it, finally. I must be blessed.

Kal_Aline:

... in at will states, like most of the nation, you don't need a reason to fire someone.

True - BUT you can't fire someone for a forbidden reason, such as race or religion. Essentially the burden of proof is on the employee to demonstrate that a forbidden reason was the actual reason.

Degsme has it right, though - get legal advice. Since that has a low chance of success, in my opinion, I'd continue to look for a job, too.

in at will states, like most of the US, and certainly the south, you don't need a reason to fire someone.

KA

I will say, it would give a lawyer a job, at least until the guy's money ran out.