When an employer responds to charges of coworker sexual harassment, the employer can be liable only if its response demonstrates “indifference or unreasonableness or indifference in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known.” Thompson v. Dacco, Inc., 2006 WL 2038007, *11 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 19, 2006), citing Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, Inc., 123 F.3d 868, 872-73 (6th Cir. 1997).
While defendants contend the marks are not "KKK," the record is clear that various individuals believed the marks were "KKK," while others believed the marks said something else, and still others believed the marks were tape burns. If the marks are determined to be the letters "KKK," a discriminatory intent would be clear. See McMullen v. Carson, 754 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1985) (recognizing the actual and perceived nature of the KKK is a violent, criminal, and racist organization); Thompson v. Dacco, Inc., No. 2-03-0079, 2006 WL 2038007, *11 (M.D. Tenn. 2006) (recognizing "KKK" graffiti writings are racially offensive). Whether the incident Mr. Traversie alleges between he and George actually occurred is an issue of material fact. For this court to make a decision regarding the events alleged by Mr. Traversie would require the court to weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations.