In a case that started in Augusta and ended in Washingtom, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sent a strong message to employers: Down-sizing and out-sourcing do not excuse hate-mongering.

The high court, without comment, rejected an appeal by WalMart of a lower court award of $300,000 to Benjamin Guiliani, whose maintainence company was hired by the chain’s Augusta store in 1994 to regularly clean the parking lot. He lost the contract a year later, not for doing a bad job, but for demanding civility from his employer.

Mr. Guiliani, a Mexican-American, was frequently harrassed and insulted by store employees. The phrase “white supremacy” was spray-painted on the asphalt Guiliani cleaned. An employee was seen leaving the lot with a can of spray paint. Store management did nothing. Another employee yelled racial slurs at Mr. Guiliani, even shoved him. Store management told Mr. Guiliani he was overreacting. After Mr. Guiliani persisted in his demands to be treated fairly and respectfully, his contract was terminated.

Mr. Guiliani sued under an 1866 civil-rights law, revised in 1991, protecting the rights of people to make and enforce contracts without being subject to racial discrimination. A Maine jury last year awarded Mr. Guiliani $650,000 after finding that Wal-Mart had allowed a hostile work environment, although the presiding judge reduced it to $300,000. The company appealed to the federal district court, saying the law applies only to employees, not independent contractors. The company lost that appeal and now its subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

The decision to push this case to the farthest limits allowed by the Constitution was made, of course, not in Augusta but at corporate headquarters in Arkansas. It’s hard to decide which is more offensive, the company’s blatant misinterpretion of a law clearly intended to protect independent contractors or its implied position that independent contractors do not deserve the same basic protections as those on the regular payroll. Companies may have lots of good reasons to outsource tasks formerly done in-house. The ability to duck responsibility for the hateful behavior of employees cannot be among them.