The claim is discrimination based on differential treatment for the same action (saying nigger or nigga) based on race. In other words, he was reprimanded for the act and for being white, while black colleagues weren't reprimanded for the same act.I have no idea how it would hold up in a court, but it just shows he didn't learn a damn thing despite how apologetic he claims he was.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick allowed the suit to go to trial. In a Dec. 23 memo, he said that "there is evidence in this case to suggest that at least two African Americans said the word in the workplace with no consequences." He continued:
"When viewed in its historical context, one can see how people in general, and African Americans in particular, might react differently when a white person uses the word than if an African American uses it. Nevertheless, we are unable to conclude that this is a justifiable reason for permitting the Station to draw race-based distinctions between employees."
But he said it was not clear that Burlington's firing constituted a violation of federal equal opportunity statutes.
It's an instance of legal formalism. Which is a means of making colorblind arguments against laws such as affirmative action: "no discrimination means no discrimination, there's no room under the Constitution for lawful discrimination." It's unfortunately been a bit of a plague on jurisprudence.