I looked more into this ruling by Amy Coney Barrett. This is all taken out of context.

1. The supervisor and employee here are both Black.

2. Barrett does NOT say that being called the N-word can't create a hostile work environment. She says you have to show it upset you. https://twitter.com/JillFilipovic/status/1316015142828556301

3. The 7th Circuit, where Barrett is a judge, says:

“Perhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment [than] the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as ‘n*gger’ by a supervisor.” Rodgers v. Western-So'n Life Ins., 12 F.3d 668, 675 (7th Cir. 1993)

These things are important because they're true.

We don't need any more triggering and upsetting comments about the future that awaits us as Black people in America.

Having misrepresentations out there that stoke fear are not okay. I wish those in privilege wouldn't do that.

Should you wish to read the case in which Amy Coney Barrett ruled against the Black employee for failing to show that he was upset by having his Black boss reference him using the N-word, the case can be found here:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D08-21/C:18-2948:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2386807:S:0

To those asking why it matters both parties are Black:

Because the supervisor may have used the N-word as a warm greeting toward the employee—who never said it upset him.

To have a case, behavior must be offensive BOTH objectively (most people) AND subjectively (the employee).