A fired worker's noose complaint sends a strong warning to HR leaders about investigating racial harassment claims
A noose in the workplace and a disputed firing have put employer harassment investigations under scrutiny in a recent Ohio appellate court decision.
Jhalil Croley, a heavy equipment operator, filed suit against JDM Services, LLC, doing business as Frank Road Recycling Solutions, and co-owner Joseph Loewendick. Croley, an African American, alleged that after being hired through a staffing agency in January 2020, he discovered a noose tied to the rearview mirror of the compactor he was assigned to operate. According to the complaint, Croley reported the incident to his career advisor and to the staffing agency, which said it would contact management.
The complaint states that Croley’s first days on the job involved training and equipment operation at the landfill. On January 14, 2020, Croley was directed to operate the compactor. During this shift, he claims he found the noose, which he described as “freshly-tied” and without dirt. Croley took a photo of the noose, left it in the compactor, and later placed it outside the employee trailer before leaving for the day.
That night, Croley contacted his career advisor at Jewish Family Services, who advised him to document the incident. The next morning, Croley sent a photo of the noose to the staffing agency, which indicated it would inform the general manager. When Croley arrived at work, the general manager said he would investigate and asked Croley where the noose was located. Croley said he had left it outside the trailer and, on advice from his advisor, later picked it up and kept it in his vehicle.
Croley claimed that after the incident, he was “never comfortable” again at work. He alleged that on January 21, 2020, the glass on the cab of his excavator shattered while he was operating it and believed it was intentional. He was later instructed not to come to work and was called into a meeting with management and staffing representatives, where he was told an investigation was underway. Croley was asked to turn over the noose but refused, citing distrust. The company then terminated him for insubordination and for impeding the investigation.
After his dismissal, the company contacted police, alleging Croley had made threatening statements to another employee. According to the complaint and deposition testimony, law enforcement took no action after the employee involved said he never felt threatened.
Croley’s lawsuit alleged a hostile work environment, race discrimination, and retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the alleged acts were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment and that Croley’s termination was justified by his refusal to cooperate with the investigation.
On October 16, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court found there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Croley’s claims of hostile work environment and retaliation, emphasizing that the presence of a noose in the workplace is a serious matter and that even a single incident can be sufficient to proceed with such claims.
The case has been remanded for further proceedings, highlighting for HR professionals the importance of thorough and fair investigations into workplace harassment allegations.
