Noose at local worksite prompts federal lawsuit

One winter morning early last year, Tyrone Burns, 34, a boom truck driver for a local branch of the Winroc Corporation, came upon a disturbing sight that sent chills down his spine.

Near a stairway on the main level of the construction company’s Bloomington warehouse where his truck is usually parked during off-hours, a salmon-colored rope caught his eye.

It dangled loosely amid some wires from a hook that was mounted on a wall overhead. The rope was tied in a noose.

Seeing that, Burns, who is one of few Black employees at Winroc, described his immediate reaction: “It felt like walking into a haunted house,” he said, noting that it happened to appear during the week of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. “I was like, are you serious?” he said during a recent interview at a coffee shop that was only a block away from a development enshrouded by scaffolding, a site where he has worked in southwest Minneapolis.

Winroc, which is based in Canada but has 41 branches throughout the U.S., supplies drywall, sheetrock, steel stud framing, and more to construction projects around the Twin Cities. Some examples include the federal courthouse building in St. Paul, Bridgewater condos in Minneapolis, and The Mist development in Lake Minnetonka.

For Burns, a six-year Winroc employee, the noose incident reflects the kind of racially charged atmosphere he says he endures day in and day out. He and a fellow employee of four years, Marvin Dortsch, 32, who is also Black, filed a joint federal lawsuit against the company on October 31, 2006.

Their 12-page complaint charges racial discrimination and retaliation. Earlier findings of an investigation conducted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) add credibility to their claims; the EEOC sent them a Notice of a Right to Sue on August 31 of last year.

Winroc, however, denies their allegations. Mark Wills, a Winroc manager, declined to comment and deferred to Minneapolis-based defense attorney Rich Dahl. Dahl said he couldn’t comment on the pending litigation except to say, “Winroc does vigorously deny that it discriminates against them. Both men are still employed there. The company has policies against discrimination and vigorously defends them.”

But some other construction workers and legal experts agree that the case illustrates how racial and sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly in construction trades, remains an ongoing reality. Across the country, cases dealing with race, nationality and gender have surged since 2001, noted Dawn Swink, an assistant professor in the department of ethics and business at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota.

Although it’s unclear how many cases went unreported in the past, increased training on the subject has shown little effect. In construction trades, “It’s not a very diverse workplace. A lot of that has been going on for so long that it’s hard to break through the barrier,” she said.

Also, after an employee files a complaint, “A company has to be very careful. If they do anything that could be construed as retaliation, that makes the case look stronger,” she noted.
Lori Peterson, the Minneapolis attorney who is representing Burns and Dortsch, specializes in cases of racial and sexual discrimination. Often, she said, “It’s hard for people to come forward. Employees don’t want to rock the boat. They see what happens when you do — you get targeted.”

A hostile work environment

Burns rarely encounters other Black people on construction sites. For two years, he was the sole Black employee of the local branch of Winroc. Now, he’s aware of only two other African Americans who work on site (counting Dortsch).

Since vocalizing his complaints, Dortsch, a lead truck driver for the company, feels he has been passed over for promotions in favor of White men who have less seniority.

In the complaint the men filed, they maintain that they have been subjected to all kinds of racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation at Winroc. The harassment includes a laundry list of threatening and demeaning comments.

Among these comments is the word “ni**er” and such expressions as “Oreo truck,” “Fetch, boy,” and “Negro station”; stereotypes about Blacks eating chicken, being lazy, being on welfare, becoming thieves and drug dealers, and a variety of sexual innuendoes; and Dortsch’s trembling lips resembling those of a lynched victim in a movie. They say such comments are thrown around relentlessly.

Rumors were spread about Burns’ supposed plans to get into a truck or an airplane and ram it into the building. Burns said a coworker concocted the story just to get him in trouble.

About the noose, which Peterson said she has heard the defense refer to as an “allegedly threatening rope,” Burns and Dortsch say managers initially told them it was a joke.

Additionally, they allege that they’ve been treated differently than White employees. For example, Burns was reprimanded for so-called “excessive” cell phone use while White coworkers continue to talk on cell phones without penalty, he said.

They’ve been disciplined for coming late to work while others are permitted to be tardy and even receive wake-up calls. At one point, Burns was accused of damaging sheetrock and told to pay for it, but when the blame was later transferred to a White employee, the bill went unpaid. Since taking legal action, the two men say it seems like they’re under constant surveillance.

In a handwritten testimony to the EEOC, Burns wrote in the summer of 2006, “Winroc did an investigation but took no action, not even a written statement. They never told us the outcome of their investigation. If there was zero tolerance for this behavior there should have been some kind of action taken…”

In its legal argument against the allegations, Winroc contends that the rope wasn’t a noose, but an example of a coworker’s attempt to practice his knot-tying skills. It was taken down right away after the men spoke up about it, the argument states.

Additionally, the company argues that the rope, which it states was found in an obscure area of the building, had been hanging in that spot for months. Some of the allegations are too vague to respond to, the statement reads, and it claims insufficient knowledge and information to confirm or deny some of the allegations.

The company further defends itself by saying that Burns and Dortsch didn’t take the proper steps to mitigate problems. It suggests that Burns and Dortsch denied any additional discriminatory incidents when the company questioned them in regards to the rope. Also, the company makes the case that it responded to complaints of “excessive” cell phone use and hasn’t been treating them differently from others.

Minorities in construction

Derogatory comments that attack minorities and women can often be overheard via CB radios at job sites, some construction workers say. At times, it goes beyond shocking commentary.

For example, hard hats belonging to Black workers have been discovered with screws purposefully drilled into them (turning the hat into a weapon), while lunchboxes have been sprayed with urine, testified one veteran of the industry who didn’t want his name printed.

Depictions of Black people hanging from a noose are also commonplace, the longtime carpenter said. Few people, however, are apt to act on it, out of fear of being labeled a troublemaker and then blocked from jobs.

Affirmative action requirements don’t address the treatment of minorities and women once they arrive on a job in an industry that has been referred to as an “ol’ boys’ network,” he and others say. The scarcity of minorities on job sites contributes to the problem, they explain.

In Minnesota, only 13 percent of residents belong to minority groups, according to a 2000 affirmative action report from the state’s Department of Human Resources. Of 138,386 residents employed by the construction industry statewide, about 93.3 percent are White. Only 6.7 percent belong to communities of color.

Samuel L. Myers, Jr., professor of human relations and social justice at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs, said via email, “The enforcement of existing civil rights laws can have the unintended effect of bringing extant racism into the forefront.”

A federal law, Title VII, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, but just holding prejudicial beliefs isn’t illegal, he said.

“I think the next agenda item for those of us committed to equal opportunity and fairness is to find ways to diminish the negative impacts of racism within the context of vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Personally, I am not too optimistic about eliminating racism itself. But, at least we can reduce the negative impacts,” he said.

Burns said the events have taken a toll on his personal life. Since he started working at Winroc, he has turned his life around, he said. Recently, he became a licensed minister.

“I just want to be looked at as a human being,” he said. “It doesn’t have to do with skin color… I’m trying to be strong. I feel like I need to be. I try not to let my kids see me sad. I want them to see how I handle my problems.”

“If they [Winroc] took it more seriously,” Burns added, “you know, posted a note, had a company meeting and said, ‘No more racial jokes,’ it would’ve been totally fine.”

“Every time you work with certain people, they let you know that they don’t want you there,” said Dortsch. “I’m afraid to lose my job.”

Anna Pratt welcomes reader responses to prat0073@hotmail.com.