WPC [`龾0֖p)7PjOqG>/l.&_)>V>B,zrZӊc&WQ/9pNw (?]@qM3oJ򢊿_dV?,̐"ixAH/)c%ScXtФq5<;VX'`, 0gBlsThׄx췰df\;^gg `Նd ng*[ AyeDy^2𯪍@|uu08RFjw_`ƥv>ahP!KQBKP Խl9s@.mYeVU+rp*TdžnZtR>ޚE CN"~-`FYIU!``"Uo%ӽsȘ }yˆ`Fÿۂ(̍녆:BvAǤ1n6ixN**e++,y[--W../ 1uo00j11234I55P6 72n88k9;;>zY??{c@@NaAaAcA.B0D5DE{oFFGHIIJJ;KLLLMNN1OzO-P 1uPy(QQ&RR4SS>T UUVVxW 0X#YY?ZZw[?\\^]] Be^^z_ 0L0__1``Gaa 0cb}ccde;e 0Yggghhhxijj 0cIpp0q"qrZstt"vuv"wwhx/yyz{>||}~>   āƁ  ʅޅ҇ 0ĉ 0 0Z 0 0 0a 0 0  2R ڐ  :PB  4 Thj\  Nn   R( z  t,J ֦    R 3Q:o  1e":$^P  Bb:D:̶   R 0w&C 0 0j 0 0 0 0` 0DO 1   m".Pz[B% HB B. pz p:        NRTJ  @`P  $ N8 2 JB\BB    >M > > > >E > 0]N\\profnet2\803front0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ԗ8 8STRUBB3|x>U(9 Z(Times New Roman (.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0    ($USUS.,    3    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.at60. y  ($USUS.,    2    _Ԁ477U.S.57(1986).  ($USUS.,    5    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.at68.  ($USUS.,    78    _Ԁ284F.3d642(5thCir.2002).\  `&Times New Roman  ($USUS.,    77    _Ԁ295F.3d335(2dCir.2002). w  ($USUS.,    65    _Id.at808.  ($USUS.,    11    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo510U.S.17(1993). y  ($USUS.,    18    _523U.S.75(1998). o  ($USUS.,    66    _Id. y  ($USUS.,    104    _Ԁ507F.3d57780. {  ($USUS.,    19    _Ԁ524U.S.775(1998).   ($USUS.,    4    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.at64(internalquotationmarksomitted). x  ($USUS.,    28    _ԀId.at80.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) |  ($USUS.,    16    _ԀId.at2122.  ($USUS.,    76    _Ԁ341F.3d606(7thCir.2003).  ($USUS.,    8    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo477U.S.at65.  ($USUS.,    9    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.at67.  ($USUS.,    10    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.  ($USUS.,    79    _Ԁ229F.3d593(7thCir.2000). x  ($USUS.,    80    _ԀId.at600. {  ($USUS.,    81    _ԀId.at60001.   ($USUS.,    82    _Ԁ252F.3d880(7thCir.2001).SeealsoFyfev.CityofFortWayne,241F.3d597(7th  Cir.2001)(denialofreimbursementfortravelandlodgingexpensesatseminarnotanadverse  employmentaction);Bellv.EPA,232F.3d546(7thCir.2000)(cancellingconferencecalledby  plaintiffandfailingtogreetherorspeaktoherwerenotadverseemploymentactions).i)  ($USUS.,    12    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.at21!22. a  ($USUS.,    13    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.TitleVIIcomesintoplaybeforetheharassingconductleadstoanervous  breakdown.Id.at22.  ($USUS.,    14    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoId.at22!23.   ($USUS.,    15    _Id.at23. XXXXJusticeScalia,inaconcurringopinion,arguedthattheCourt'sdefinitionof  actionableharassmentletsvirtuallyunguidedjuriesdecidewhethersexrelatedconductengaged  in(orpermittedby)anemployerisegregiousenoughtowarrantanawardofdamages.  C #XXX Xx#ԀJustice  Scaliaadmitted,however,thatheknewof notestmorefaithfultotheinherentlyvaguestatutory t languagethantheonetheCourttodayadopts. }  ($USUS.,    70    _Ԁ124S.Ct.2342(2004). p  ($USUS.,    31    _Id.  ($USUS.,    83    _ԀMurray,252F.3dat888. q  ($USUS.,    72    _ԀId. y  ($USUS.,    95    _ԀId.at554.  ($USUS.,    99    _Ԁ503F.3dat629(internalcitationsomitted). $  ($USUS.,    97    _ԀAsasidenote,thecourtnotedthataworkingenvironmentneednotbe hellishbefore  aTitleVIIsuitcansucceed!theissueforthelawyersforallpartiesshouldratherbewhether a  protectedgroupisexperiencingabuseintheworkplace,onaccountoftheirprotected  characteristic,tothedetrimentoftheirjobperformanceoradvancement.Id.at501. ~  ($USUS.,    100    _Ԁ517F.3d974,98182. +  ($USUS.,    29    _Ԁ29C.F.R.sec.1604.11(definingsexualharassmentas unwelcomesexualadvances,  requestsforsexualfavors,andotherverbalandphysicalconductofasexualnature). x  ($USUS.,    30    _ԀId.at80. q  ($USUS.,    33    _ԀId.  ($USUS.,    98    _ԀId.at50102(mostinternalcitationsomitted).  ($USUS.,    1    _o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo42U.S.C.2000e2(a)(1). y  ($USUS.,    67    _ԀId.at___. y  ($USUS.,    105    _Ԁ482F.3dat986. x  ($USUS.,    96    _ԀId.at498. z  ($USUS.,    68    _ԀId.at____.  ($USUS.,    101    _ԀId.at98285(internalcitationsomitted).   ($USUS.,    69    _ԀDistantallegedactsalsoremain subjecttowaiver,estoppel,andequitabletolling  whenequitysorequires.536U.S.at121.  ($USUS.,    102    _Ԁ505F.3dat734(internalcitationsomitted).  ($USUS.,    73    _ԀId.at2351!56(mostinternalcitationsomitted). w  ($USUS.,    40    _Id.at751. ~  ($USUS.,    23    _Ԁ523U.S.at___.  ($USUS.,    24    _Id.(citationsomitted). x  ($USUS.,    25    _Id.at____. p  ($USUS.,    26    _Id. |  ($USUS.,    27    _Id.vx]*3MQUY]aeiBullets List o  ($USUS.,    48    _Id. {  ($USUS.,    20    _Ԁ524U.S.742(1998).  ($USUS.,    21    _Ԁ523U.S.75(1998). z  ($USUS.,    32    _ԀId.at_____. {  ($USUS.,    34    _Ԁ524U.S.742(1998). {  ($USUS.,    35    _Ԁ524U.S.775(1998).  ($USUS.,    53    _Faragher,524U.S.at786!88(internalcitationsandsomequotationmarksomitted). }  ($USUS.,    103    _Ԁ507F.3dat577. z  ($USUS.,    106    _Ԁ505F.3dat1314.  ($USUS.,    36    _Id.at78183,77FEPCases14.  ($USUS.,    7    _ԀId.at64(statingthatTitleVIIwasnotlimitedtoeconomicaspectsofemployment).  ($USUS.,    107    _Ԁ515F.3dat48,citingHarris.<llD:QuickFormat1X<XXXX<XXX<cb  X<XXXX<XXX<cb   y  ($USUS.,    109    _ԀId.at50.  ($USUS.,    37    _524U.S.742,747,77FEPCases1.  ($USUS.,    38    _Id.at748,77FEPCases1(citationstorecordomitted). y  ($USUS.,    108    _ԀId.at49.  ($USUS.,    110    _ԀPatane,508F.3dat1112(citingBellAtlantic,127S.Ct.1955,1974).  ($USUS.,    39    _Id.at74647(citationsomitted). }  ($USUS.,    111    _ԀId.at11415. z  ($USUS.,    41    _Id.at75354. y  ($USUS.,    112    _Ԁ508F.3dat___. d z  ($USUS.,    113    _Ԁ496F.3dat1056. p  ($USUS.,    42    _Id.0.Normal w  ($USUS.,    43    _Id.at754.  ($USUS.,    44    _Id.at756(citationsomitted). w  ($USUS.,    45    _Id.at757.  ($USUS.,    46    _Id.at758(citationsomitted). w  ($USUS.,    47    _Id.at759.<oo:Footnote RefXXXS\  `&Times New RomanSS\  `&Times New RomanSXXX x  ($USUS.,    49    _ԀId.at761.  ($USUS.,    50    _Id.at76163(citationsomitted). z  ($USUS.,    71    _ԀId.at2347.  ($USUS.,    51    _Id.at764!65(emphasisadded)(internalcitationsomitted). 1  ($USUS.,    52    _Ԁ524U.S.775(1998).JusticeGinsburgfiledanopinionconcurringinthejudgmentin  eachcase;JusticeThomasfiledadissentingopinioninwhichJusticeScaliajoinedineachcase.64Hyperlink      ($USUS.,    54    _Id.at788(internalquotationmarksomitted).  ($USUS.,    114    _Ԁ_WC_Ԁ&MEnterprises,Inc.,496F.3dat399401(mostcitationsomitted).  z  ($USUS.,    115    _Ԁ512F.3d157,164.  ($USUS.,    116    _ԀId.,quotingFaragher,524U.S.at807.  ($USUS.,    55    _Id.at805!07(citationsomitted).   ($USUS.,    56    _Id.at807!08. XXXXTheCourtorderedthatjudgmentbeenteredonremandforFaragher,  notingthatthecityhadnotsoughtreviewofthedistrictcourt'sfindingsthatthehostilityinthe  workplacewassevereenoughtobeactionable,andthatitwasattributabletothetwoharassing  supervisors,whohadvirtuallyuncheckedauthorityovertheirsubordinates.#XXX X# XXXXԀTheCourtnotedthat t thecityhadentirelyfailedtodisseminateitspolicyagainstsexualharassmentamongthebeach ` employeesandhadmadenoattempttokeeptrackofsupervisors'conduct.Further,theCity's L  policydidnotincludeanyassurancethattheharassingsupervisorscouldbebypassedin 8  registeringcomplaints.| C ׀Thus,theCourtheld,asamatteroflaw,thatthecitycouldnotbefound $ t tohaveexercisedreasonablecaretopreventharassment,andthereforewouldnothavethe  ` opportunitytopresentanaffirmativedefense.0 C   L  #XXX XR#(;3$2#  0  .3  0   z  ($USUS.,    117    _ԀId.at165. y  ($USUS.,    118    _Ԁ513F.3dat160.http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2002405516&ReferencePosition=605 {  ($USUS.,    119    _Ԁ501F.3dat70607.http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2000051912http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1993212367  ($USUS.,    120    _Ԁ517F.3dat33337(mostcitationsomitted).http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2007684099&ReferencePosition=240  ($USUS.,    121    _ԀEngel,506F.3dat1124. v  ($USUS.,    22    _Id.at79.  ($USUS.,    57    _ XXXX536U.S.101(2002)#XXX Xf#.  ($USUS.,    58    _ XXXXId.at10405.#XXX Xi#  ($USUS.,    59    _ XXXX536U.S.at105.#XXX Xf#http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1999104390&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=702&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl  ($USUS.,    60    _ XXXXId.at110.#XXX Xi#  ($USUS.,    61    _ XXXXԀId.#XXX Xf#  ($USUS.,    62    _ XXXXԀId.at112.#XXX Xf#  ($USUS.,    63    _ XXXXId.at115.#XXX Xi#  ($USUS.,    64    _ XXXXId.#XXX Xf#  ($USUS.,    65    _ XXXXId.at117.#XXX Xi#http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2010198408&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=350&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_999_5SDU_5#HN;F11http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(011)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(011)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB112013960385#HN;F12http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(012)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(012)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wl*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   B122013960385http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1984106247&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=427&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_999_6SDU_6#HN;F13Document1zzF172015277564http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(013)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(013)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB132013960385#HN;F14http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(014)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(014)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB142013960385http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1999104390&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=702&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_506_1126SDU_1126citeas((Cite as: 506 F.3d 1118, *1126)#HN;F15http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(015)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=LAWS2.0&service=Find&serialnum=2013960385&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(015)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT0191726&vr=1.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB152013960385http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1998109558&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=676&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1999245022&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=662&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1992149001&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=779&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&serialnum=1992149001&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&tf=-1&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2002314635&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=1226&db=4637&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_999_7SDU_7http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1997250662&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=1224&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_506_1127SDU_1127citeas((Cite as: 506 F.3d 1118, *1127)  ($USUS.,    122    _ԀId.at1125!27(citationsomitted).http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2013169005&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=719&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&serialnum=2013169005&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&tf=-1&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&serialnum=2013169005&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&tf=-1&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlDocument1zzF182015277564#HN;F10 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Document1zzF132015277564http://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&service=Find&serialnum=2014119773&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(010)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT8421726&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&service=Find&serialnum=2014119773&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(010)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT8421726&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB102014119773http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&serialnum=2013169005&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&tf=-1&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlDocument1zzF132013093974http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1996205392&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=1213&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2006660799&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=977&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlDocument1zzF162015277564http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2002534528&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=935&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_506_1146SDU_1146citeas((Cite as: 507 F.3d 1139, *1146) |  ($USUS.,    123    _Ԁ507F.3dat114546. w  ($USUS.,    6    _ԀId.at67.http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.05&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2013169005&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&referenceposition=725&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl y  ($USUS.,    17    _ԀId.at23.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(# 9  ($USUS.,    31    _JusticeScaliaknewofnotestmorefaithfultotheinherentlyvaguestatutorylanguage  thantheonetheCourttodayadopts.Id.at25,63FEPCases225(Scalia,J,concurring).(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# vxVGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets Listhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&service=Find&serialnum=2014119773&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(011)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT8421726&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttp://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.05&service=Find&serialnum=2014119773&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(011)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT8421726&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB112014119773  ($USUS.,    74    _ԀSeeHollyDv.CaliforniaInst.ofTech.,339F.3d1158(9thCir.2003).  ($USUS.,    75    _Ԁ354F.3d34(1stCir.2003).  ($USUS.,    84    _ԀLutkewittev.Gonzales,436F.3d248,255(D.C.Cir.2006)(Brown,concurring).   ($USUS.,    85    _ԀId.,citingHollyD.v.Cal.Inst.ofTech.,339F.3d1158,1167(9thCir.2003)andJin  v.MetroLifeIns.Co.,310F.3d84,97(2dCir.2002).  ($USUS.,    86    _ԀHollyD,339F.3dat1173. p  ($USUS.,    87    _ԀId. ~  ($USUS.,    88    _ԀId.https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=1996205392&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl  ($USUS.,    89    _Ԁ436F.3d248(D.C.Cir.2006).   ($USUS.,    90    _ԀTheNinthCircuithas leftforanotherdaythequestionof whetherquidproquo  liabilityattacheswhenanallegedharasser,whowasnotinapositiontoexactreprisalsatthe  timehisadvanceswererejected,issubsequentlyentrustedwithandabusessuchauthority.  Porterv.Cal.DeptofCorr.,419F.3d885,892(9thCir.2005). }  ($USUS.,    91    _Ԁ548U.S.___(2006). x  ($USUS.,    92    _ԀId.at___.https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=2010803603&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl u  ($USUS.,    93    _ԀBurlingtonNorthern,___U.S.at___.TheCourtfurtherstated Wespeakofmaterial  adversitybecausewebelieveitisimportanttoseparatesignificantfromtrivialharms.  (emphasisinoriginal)  ($USUS.,    94    _ԀBurlingtonNorthern,___U.S.at___.https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=2006660799&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl#HN;F9https://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(009)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(009)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB92013169005https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1999062628&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=422&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2000387569&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=633&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2001497965&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1192&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_999_8SDU_8https://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(010)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(010)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB102013169005https://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(011)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(011)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB112013169005sp_506_721SDU_721citeas((Cite as: 500 F.3d 710, *721)https://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(012)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(012)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB122013169005https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1997076506&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1265&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2006660799&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=976&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=1998132969&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&ordoc=2013169005&db=708&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_506_725SDU_725citeas((Cite as: 500 F.3d 710, *725)https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1996176070&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=481&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_999_11SDU_11https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=1998132973&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=1998132969&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1999031455&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1366&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW8.06&serialnum=1999031455&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=Y&tc=-1&ordoc=2013169005&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wlsp_999_12https://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(015)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlhttps://web2.westlaw.com/KCNotes/default.wl?rs=WLW8.06&service=Find&serialnum=2013169005&n=1&fn=_top&sv=Split&rlti=1&locatestring=HD(015)%2cCL(H%2cO)%2cDC(A%2cL%2cO%2cD%2cG)%2cDT(E%2cD%2cC%2cM)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11018196&vr=2.0&rp=%2fKCNotes%2fdefault.wlB152013169005SDU_12  ($USUS.,    124    _ԀWeger,500F.3dat7226.Citationsandportionsofthetextomitted.  ($USUS.,    125    _Ԁ2008WL763216**78.Document1zzB122013093974Document1zzB132013093974Document1zzB132015277564Document1zzB162015277564Document1zzB172015277564Document1zzB182015277564(O$  ($USUS.,    66    _ XXXXId.#XXX Xi# !USUS.,  _ 8XXdd8DevelopmentsinHarassmentLaw  MuchofthismaterialwaspreparedfortheNationalEmploymentLawyersAssociation  AnnualConventioninJune2008  Copyright2008_Mary_ԀRoseStrubbe ` I.Background!TheSupremeCourtandtheEvolutionoftheLawofSexualHarassment 8      XXXXTitleVIIprohibitsdiscriminationbyanemployerorotherstatutoryrespondentagainst  ` anyindividualwithrespecttohiscompensation,terms,conditionsorprivilegesofemployment,  8  becauseofsuchindividual'srace,color,sex,religion,ornationalorigin.9  #  1      ׀#XXX X+# XXXXԀTitleVIIdoesnot   mention,letalonedefine,harassment.#XXX X#Ԁ     Itwasnotuntil1986,inMeritorSavingsBankv.Vinson,|  #  2      ׀thattheSupremeCourt p definitivelyestablishedthatTitleVIIprohibitssexualharassmentinemployment.SinceMeritor, H theSupremeCourthasrevisitedthelawofsexualharassmentonanumberofoccasions,  p graduallyevolvingitsjurisprudencetoaddressnewandmorecomplexissues.TheSupreme H Courtssexualharassmentjurisprudence,inturn,hasbecomethefoundationforallclaimsof   harassmentinemploymentlaw.Thispaperthereforebeginswithabriefreviewofsomeofthe  decisionsthathaveshapedharassmentlaw.Itthenbrieflyrecapsthekeyissuesinmany  harassmentclaims.Thatrecapisfollowedbynotesonsomerecentdecisions. X   @MeritorSavingsBankv.Vinson  0"    Thebasicelementsofemployerliabilityforworkplaceharassmentinclude:(1) $P" unwelcomeconduct(2)becauseoftheplaintiffsgenderorotherprotectedstatus(3)thatalters %(!$ conditionsofemployment,where(4)theemployercanbeheldresponsiblefortheconduct.󀀀  '#&  XXXX  InMeritor,thecomplainingemployeeallegedharassmentbecause#XXX X7 # XXXXshehadbeenpressured  intohavingsexualrelationswithhersupervisor.  #  3      #XXX X # XXXXԀTheCourtstatedthat[w]ithoutquestion,  whenasupervisorsexuallyharassesasubordinatebecauseofthesubordinate'ssex,that ` supervisordiscriminate[s]onthebasisofsex.|  #  4      ׀TheSupremeCourtheldthathostile 8  environmentsexualharassmentwassexdiscrimination,actionableunderTitleVII.#XXX X # XXXXԀInthe  ` processtheCourtestablishedseveralprinciplesforfutureguidance.  8    First,theCourtpermittedthesexualharassmentclaimtoproceedeventhoughthe   plaintiffhadvoluntarilyparticipatedinsexualintercoursewiththeallegedharasseronanumber   ofoccasions.Thekeytotheclaimisproofthattheconductwasunwelcome.0  #  5      ׀#XXX X # XXXXUnwelcome p conductisconductthattherecipientdidnotaskforandregardsasoffensive;#XXX X # XXXXsexualadvances H maybeunwelcomeeveniftherecipientacquiesces.#XXX X# XXXXԀThefactthatthesex-relatedconductwas  p voluntary,inthesensethatthecomplainantwasnotforcedtoparticipateagainstherwillis H notadefensetoasexualharassmentsuitunderTitleVII.The correctinquiryiswhether[the   plaintiff]byherconductindicatedthattheallegedsexualadvanceswereunwelcome,notwhether  heractualparticipationinsexualintercoursewasvoluntary.  #  6          Second,theCourtheldthatTitleVII#XXX Xi# XXXXԀprohibits#XXX X;# XXXXԀharassmenteveniftheharassmentcauses X  no directfinancialinjury(theformofharassmentwenowrefertoas hostileenvironment).S  #  7      ׀ 0"  TheMeritor#XXX X# XXXXCourt#XXX X# XXXXagreedwiththeEEOCthatunwelcomesexualconductisprohibited  discrimination,regardlessofwhetheritispartofaneconomicquidproquo,iftheconducthas  thepurposeoreffectofunreasonablyinterferingwithanindividual'sworkperformanceor ` creatinganintimidating,hostile,oroffensiveworkingenvironment.  #  8       8    TheCourtdidnotethatnotallharassmentintheworkplaceaffectsaterm,condition,  ` orprivilege'ofemploymentwithinthemeaningofTitleVII. |  #  9      ׀Absentatangibleemployment  8  action,harassmentisactionableonlyifitissufficientlysevereorpervasivetoalterthe   conditionsof[thecomplainant's]employmentandcreateanabusiveworkingenvironment.!0  #  10      ׀#XXX X9# XXXXԀ#XXX X# XXXX     #XXX X3# XXXX ` H` ` `  @Harrisv.ForkliftSystems  p   In1993,theSupremeCourtdecidedHarrisv.ForkliftSystems,  #  11      ׀andheldthattobe @ actionablethehostileworkenvironmentmustbeonethatareasonablepersonwouldfind h hostile,lookingatallthecircumstances.Additionally,theplaintiffmustsubjectivelyperceive @ theenvironmentashostile.'  #  12      ׀Psychologicalinjury,however,isnotanecessaryelementofa  hostileenvironmentcase.(L   #  13      ׀Rather,psychologicalharmisbutonerelevantfactortoconsiderin  determiningwhetheranenvironmentishostile.)   #  14      ׀Otherrelevantfactorsincludethefrequencyof x thediscriminatoryconduct,itsseverity,whethertheconductisphysicallythreateningor  humiliatingoramereoffensiveutterance,andwhethertheconductunreasonablyinterferes  withthecomplainant'sworkperformance.*  #  15      ׀Anenvironmentisactionableif,evaluatedbythese ` factors,a reasonablepersonwouldfindtheenvironmenttobehostile,andiftheplaintiff 8  subjectivelyperceivedtheenvironmentashostile.,  #  16      ׀ [W]hetheranenvironmentishostileor  ` abusivecanbedeterminedonlybylookingatallthecircumstances.  #  17        8  #XXX X# XXXX  Fiveyearslater,i  nits1997!98term,theSupremeCourtdecidedthreeharassmentcases.   Oncalev.SundownerOffshoreServices   #  18      ׀heldthatTitleVIIrecognizesclaimsforsame-sex   harassment.Theothertwocases,Faragherv.CityofBocaRatonH   #  19      ׀andBurlingtonIndustriesv. p Ellerth,J   #  20      ׀dealtwithemployerliabilityforsupervisors'actions. H    ` Oncalev.SundownerOffshoreServices,Inc.!SameSexHarassment   p #XXX X## XXXX  InOncalev.SundownerOffshoreServicesInc,K  #  21      #XXX X'# XXXXԀaunanimousCourtheldthatnothingin H TitleVIInecessarilybarsaclaimofdiscriminationbecauseof...sex'merelybecausethe   plaintiffandthedefendant(orthepersonchargedwithactingonbehalfofthedefendant)areof  thesamesex.  #  22      #XXX Xj(# XXXX     #XXX XC*# XXXXJosephOncaleworkedasaroustaboutforSundownerOffshoreServicesinanallmale ` crewonanoilrigplatformintheGulfofMexico.Oncaleallegedthathewasverballyand 8  physicallyassaultedbyothermembersofthecrew,includingthesupervisor,inasexual  ` manner,andwasthreatenedwithrape.Hiscomplaintstosupervisorypersonnelproducedno  8  remedialaction.Oncaleeventuallyquit,indicatingthathedidsobecauseofsexualabuse,and   sued.     InadecisionwrittenbyJusticeScalia,theCourtbeganbyrepeatingthestatementfrom p MeritorthatthelanguageofTitleVIIevincesacongressionalintenttostrikeattheentire H spectrumofdisparatetreatmentofmenandwomeninemployment.C|  #  23      ׀Consistentwithits  p conclusioninearlierraceandsexdiscriminationcases,theCourtobservedthatTitleVII's H prohibitionofdiscrimination(becauseof...sex)protectsmenaswellaswomen.D0  #  24      ׀     HHHHH ` Weseenojustificationinthestatutorylanguageorourprecedentsfora      ` categoricalruleexcludingsame-sexharassmentclaimsfromthecoverageofTitle     ` VII.Assomecourtshaveobserved,male-on-malesexualharassmentinthe     ` workplacewasassuredlynottheprincipalevilCongresswasconcerned  l    ` withwhenitenactedTitleVII.Butstatutoryprohibitionsoftengobeyond X     ` theprincipaleviltocoverreasonablycomparableevils,anditisultimately D!    ` theprovisionsofourlawsratherthantheprincipalconcernsofourlegislatorsby 0"     ` whichwearegoverned.TitleVIIprohibitsdiscriminat[ion]...becauseof... #l!    ` sexinthetermsorconditionsofemployment.Ourholdingthatthisincludes $X"     ` sexualharassmentmustextendtosexualharassmentofanykindthatmeetsthe $D #    ` statutoryrequirements.E  #  25           Ӏ  TheCourtemphasizedthatbiasagainsttheplaintiffbecauseoftheplaintiff'sgenderisan  indispensablepartofasexharassmentcase;employmentdiscriminationlawsprohibitonly ` adverseemploymentactionsthataremotivatedbytheplaintiff'srace,color,sex,religion, 8  nationalorigin,age,ordisability.F|  #  26      ׀Thesexualnatureofharassingconductdoesnotnecessarily  ` provethattheharassmentisbecauseofsex:Wehaveneverheldthatworkplaceharassment,  8  evenharassmentbetweenmenandwomen,isautomaticallydiscriminationbecauseofsexmerely   becausethewordsusedhavesexualcontentorconnotations.G0  #  27      ׀TitleVIIdoesnotprohibitall    verbalorphysicalharassmentintheworkplace;conductcanqualifyassexualharassmentonly p ifitisbasedongender.  #  28      ׀Bythesametoken,iftheunwelcomeconductisbasedongender,the H conductneednotbesexualincontenttoqualifyassexualharassment.Withoutmentioningthe  p 1980EEOCGuidelines,5  #  29      ׀theOncaleCourtcorrectedtheGuidelinesmisleadingimplicationthat H unwelcomesexualconductnecessarilyamountstosexualharassment.Thecriticalissueisnot   whethertheoffensiveconductwassexualinnaturebutrather whethermembersofonesexare   exposedtodisadvantageoustermsorconditionsofemploymenttowhichmembersoftheother  sexarenotexposed.6  #  30      ׀     Inaddressingtheevidentiaryroleofthesexualnatureofthechallengedconduct,the  Courtcommented: ` 0  0` (#(#Courtsandjurieshavefoundtheinferenceofdiscriminationeasytodrawinmost @#  @#  8  male-femalesexualharassmentsituations,becausethechallengedconduct $ t typicallyinvolvesexplicitorimplicitproposalsofsexualactivity;itisreasonable  ` toassumethoseproposalswouldnothavebeenmadetosomeoneofthesamesex.  L  Thesamechainofinferencewouldbeavailabletoaplaintiffallegingsame-sex  8  harassment,iftherewerecredibleevidencethattheharasserwashomosexual.But $  harassingconductneednot#XXX X*# XXXXԀbemotivatedbysexualdesiretosupportaninference   ofdiscriminationonthebasisofsex.Atrieroffactmightreasonablyfindsuch @0"  @0"    discrimination,forexample,ifafemalevictimisharassedinsuchsex-specific   andderogatorytermsbyanotherwomanastomakeitclearthattheharasseris @!  @!    motivatedbygeneralhostilitytothepresenceofwomenintheworkplace.A @j!  @j!  p same-sexharassmentplaintiffmayalso,ofcourse,offerdirectcomparative @ !  @ !  \ evidenceabouthowtheallegedharassertreatedmembersofbothsexesina @*!  @*!  H mixed-sexworkplace.Whateverevidentiaryroutetheplaintiffchoosestofollow, @"  @"  4 heorshemustalwaysprovethattheconductatissuewasnotmerelytingedwith @"  @"   p offensivesexualconnotations,butactuallyconstituteddiscrimina[tion]... @8!  @8!   \ becauseofsex.,|  #  31      H` (#` (#   [Notethatthisevidentiarystandardcontinuestobeparticularlyproblematicforplaintiffs#XXX XB# XXXX   inasinglesexworkplace.]    AttheconclusionoftheOncaleopinion,JusticeScaliaemphasizedthatdiscriminatory  harassment,tobeactionableunderTitleVII,mustbesufficientlysevereorpervasiveastocreate X  ahostileworkenvironmentforareasonableperson.Male-on-malehorseplayandintersexual 0"  flirtationshouldnot,JusticeScaliacautioned,bemistakenfordiscrimination,andthesocial $X"  contextinwhichparticularbehavioroccursandisexperiencedbyitstargetmustalwaysbe %0!$ considered.L  #  32      ׀ [T]hestatutedoesnotreachgenuinebutinnocuousdifferencesinthewaysmen   andwomenroutinelyinteractwithmembersofthesamesexandoftheoppositesex.7|  #  33      ׀   0  Faragherv.CityofBocaRatonandBurlingtonIndustriesInc.v.Ellerth!Liability ` forSupervisorHarassment 8 (#(#   BurlingtonIndustriesInc.v.EllerthM0  #  34      ׀andFaragherv.CityofBocaRaton,N  #  35      ׀theothertwo  ` TitleVIIharassmentcasesoftheSupremeCourt's1997!98term,appearfactuallydissimilar.  8  EllerthcametotheCourtonavarietyofquidproquotheoriesandFaraghercametotheCourt   onahostileenvironmenttheory.YettheCourtusedthemtoarticulateaunifiedjurisprudenceof   employerliabilityforharassment,holdingthatemployersarevicariouslyliableforsexual p harassmentbysupervisors. H   #XXX XG# XXXXBethAnnFaragher,acollegestudent,workedpart-timeforfiveyearsasanocean  p lifeguardfortheParksandRecreationDepartmentoftheCityofBocaRaton,Florida.She H eventuallyresignedandsuedthecityunderTitleVII,allegingthattwoofherthreeimmediate   supervisorsrepeatedlytouchedherandtheotherfemalelifeguards(whowereasmallminorityof  thetotalguardforce)andsubjectedthemtolewdremarksandoffensivecomments.The  lifeguardshadnosignificantcontactwithhighercityofficials,andthecityhadcompletely X  failedtodistributeitsharassmentpolicytotheMarineSafetySectionwhereFaragherworked. 0"  Faragherandotherfemalelifeguardsmadethethirdon-sitesupervisorawareoftheoffensive $X" behavioroftheothertwo,butheneitherdiscussedthesecomplaintswiththeoffending  supervisorsnorreportedthecomplaintstoanyothercityofficial.R  #  36        #XXX X~P# XXXX r KimberlyEllerthworkedfor14monthsasasalespersonforBurlingtoninChicago.She ` allegedthatduringheremploymentshewasconstantlyharassedbyhersupervisor'sboss,Ted 8  Slowik,amid-levelmanagerwhowasavicepresidentbasedinNewYork.W|  #  37      ׀Inadditionto  ` repeatedboorishremarksandgestures,Ellerth'sclaimfocusedonthreeincidents.  8   r Inthesummerof1993,whileonabusinesstrip,SlowikinvitedEllerthtothehotellounge,   toldhertoloosenup,andwarned,[y]ouknow,Kim,Icouldmakeyourlifeveryhardorveryeasy   atBurlington.InMarch1994,whenEllerthwasbeingconsideredforapromotion,Slowik p expressedreservationsduringthepromotioninterviewbecauseshewasnotlooseenough.The H commentwasfollowedbyhisreachingoverandrubbingherknee.Ellerthdidreceivethe  p promotion;butwhenSlowikcalledtoannounceit,hetoldEllerth,you'regonnabeouttherewith H menwhoworkinfactories,andtheycertainlylikewomenwithprettybutts/legs.    r InMay1994,whenEllerthcalledSlowik,askingpermissiontoinsertacustomer'slogointo  afabricsample,Slowikresponded,Idon'thavetimeforyourightnow,Kim"unlessyouwantto  tellmewhatyou'rewearing.Ellerthendedthecall.Adayortwolater,EllerthcalledSlowikto X  askpermissionagain.Thistimehedeniedherrequest,butaddedsomethingalongthelinesof,are 0"  youwearingshorterskirtsyet,Kim,becauseitwouldmakeyourjobawholeheckofaloteasier.X0  #  38       $X"  r Shortlythereafter,EllerthquitandfiledsuitunderTitleVII.#XXX XpU# XXXXԀShehadnotinformedanyone %0!$ atBurlingtonaboutSlowik'sconductpriortoquitting,althoughsheknewthatBurlingtonhada  policyagainstsexualharassment.   r TheissueinEllerthwasinitiallyframedinquidproquoterms;t heCourtsignaledamajor ` shiftinTitleVIIjurisprudence,however,byreframingtheissueas#XXX X]# XXXXwhether,underTitleVII,... 8  anemployeewhorefusestheunwelcomeandthreateningsexualadvancesofasupervisor,yet  ` suffersnoadverse,tangiblejobconsequences,canrecoveragainsttheemployerwithoutshowing  8  theemployerisnegligentorotherwiseatfaultforthesupervisor'sactions.[  #  39      ׀TheCourtbeganits   analysisbypointingoutthatevenifSlowik'sremarkswerethreatstoretaliateifEllerthdeniedhim   sexualliberties,nosuchthreatwascarriedout. p 8 r Casesbasedonthreatswhicharecarriedoutarereferredtooftenasquidproquo H cases,asdistinctfrombothersomeattentionsorsexualremarksthataresufficiently 4 severeorpervasivetocreateahostileworkenvironment.Thetermsquidproquo  p andhostileworkenvironmentarehelpful,perhaps,inmakingaroughdemarcation  \ betweencasesinwhichthreatsarecarriedoutandthosewheretheyarenotorare H absentaltogether,butbeyondthisare#XXX X_# XXXXoflimitedutility.B|  #  40      4r r   r 8  **** xx 8 r Wedonotsuggestthetermsquidproquoandhostileworkenvironmentare   irrelevanttoTitleVIIlitigation.Totheextenttheyillustratethedistinctionbetween  casesinvolvingathreatwhichiscarriedoutandoffensive conductingeneral,the  termsarerelevantwhenthereisathresholdquestionwhetheraplaintiffcanprove  discriminationinviolationofTitleVII.Whenaplaintiffprovesthatatangible p employmentactionresultedfromarefusaltosubmittoasupervisor'ssexual \  demands,heorsheestablishesthattheemploymentdecisionitselfconstitutesa H! changeinthetermsandconditionsofemploymentthatisactionableunderTitleVII. 4"  Foranysexualharassmentprecedingtheemploymentdecisiontobeactionable,  #p! however,theconductmustbesevereorpervasive.BecauseEllerth'sclaiminvolves  $\" onlyunfulfilledthreats,itshouldbecategorizedasahostileworkenvironment $H # claimwhichrequiresashowingofsevereorpervasiveconduct.]0  #  41      %4!$r r   r  r #XXX XLe# XXXXThus,theissueofrealconcerntothepartiesiswhetherBurlingtonhasvicariousliability  forSlowik'sallegedmisconduct,ratherthanliabilitylimitedtoitsownnegligence.a  #  42       t  r BecauseCongressdefinedemployerunderTitleVIItoincludeagents,theCourt L  concludedthatCongressdirectedthefederalcourtstointerpretTitleVIIbasedonagency $ t principles.Toestablishauniformandpredictablefederalstandard,c|  #  43      ׀theCourtbeganwiththe  L  Restatement(Second)ofAgency.TheRestatementprovidesthatamasterissubjecttoliabilityfor $  thetortsofhisservantscommittedwhileactinginthescopeoftheiremployment.d0  #  44      ׀While the   generalruleisthatsexualharassmentbyasupervisorisnotconductwithinthescopeof   employment,e  #  45      ׀Section219(2)(b)statesthat:Amasterisnotsubjecttoliabilityforthetortsofhis \ servantsactingoutsidethescopeoftheiremployment,unless:...(b)themasterwasnegligentor 4 reckless....f  #  46      ׀TheCourtstated:  \ 8 r [A]lthoughasupervisor'ssexualharassmentisoutsidethescopeofemployment 4 becausetheconductwasforpersonalmotives,anemployercanbeliable,   nonetheless,whereitsownnegligenceisacauseoftheharassment.Anemployeris   negligentwithrespecttosexualharassmentifitkneworshouldhaveknownabout  theconductandfailedtostopit.Negligencesetsaminimumstandardforemployer  liabilityunderTitleVII;butEllerthseekstoinvokethemorestringentstandardof  vicariousliability.gL   #  47      lr r   X   r TheCourtthenturneditsattentiontoSection219(2)(d)oftheRestatement,whichprovides  thatamasterissubjecttoliabilityforthetortofaservantactingoutsidethescopeofemployment  iftheservant...wasaidedinaccomplishingthetortbytheexistenceoftheagency#XXX Xk# XXXXԀrelation.I  #  48       `  r Ashowingofemployerliabilityundertheaidedintheagencyrelationstandardrequires 8  morethanmerelytheexistenceoftheemploymentrelationship;otherwisetheemployerwouldbe  ` vicariouslyliableforallco-workerharassmentaswellasforharassmentbysupervisors.TheCourt  8  concludedthatitisasimplemattertoimposevicariousliabilityonanemployerincaseswherea   supervisortakesatangibleemploymentactionagainstasubordinate.i|  #  49         u8 r Atangibleemploymentactionconstitutesasignificantchangeinemployment p status,suchashiring,firing,failingtopromote,reassignmentwithsignificantly \ differentresponsibilities,oradecisioncausingasignificantchangeinbenefits.Hr r  8 r **** pr r  8 r   Whenasupervisormakesatangibleemploymentdecision,thereis  \ assurancetheinjurycouldnothavebeeninflictedabsenttheagencyrelation.A H tangibleemploymentactioninmostcasesinflictsdirecteconomicharm.Asa 4 generalproposition,onlyasupervisor,orotherpersonactingwiththeauthorityof   thecompany,cancausethissortofinjury. r r  8 r ****r r  0 r Forthesereasons,atangibleemploymentactiontakenbythesupervisorbecomesforTitle  VIIpurposestheactoftheemployer.Whatevertheexactcontoursoftheaidedinthe l agencyrelationstandard,itsrequirementswillalwaysbemetwhenasupervisortakesa X  tangibleemploymentactionagainstasubordinate.j0  #  50      D!r(#r(#  r TheCourtnextaddressedaquestionwithalessobviousanswer"whethertheagency #l! relationaidsasupervisorinharassmentthatdoesnotculminateinatangibleemploymentaction. $D # TheCourtansweredthisquestionalsointheaffirmative.  8 r   Inordertoaccommodatetheagencyprinciplesofvicariousliabilityforharm  causedbymisuseofsupervisoryauthority,aswellasTitleVII'sequallybasic t policiesofencouragingforethoughtbyemployersandsavingactionbyobjecting ` employees,weadoptthefollowingholdinginthiscaseandinFaragherv.Boca L  Raton,...alsodecidedtoday.Anemployerissubjecttovicariousliabilitytoa 8  victimizedemployeeforanactionablehostileenvironmentcreatedbyasupervisor $ t withimmediate(orsuccessivelyhigher)authorityovertheemployee.Whenno  ` tangibleemploymentactionistaken,adefendingemployermayraiseanaffirmative  L  defensetoliabilityordamages,subjecttoproofbyapreponderanceofthe  8  evidence,seeFed.RuleCiv.Proc.8.Thedefensecomprisestwonecessary $  elements:(a)thattheemployerexercisedreasonablecaretopreventandcorrect   promptlyanysexuallyharassingbehavior,and(b)thattheplaintiffemployee   unreasonablyfailedtotakeadvantageofanypreventiveorcorrectiveopportunities   providedbytheemployerortoavoidharmotherwise.Whileproofthatanemployer   hadpromulgatedanantiharassmentpolicywithcomplaintprocedureisnot p necessaryineveryinstanceasamatteroflaw,theneedforastatedpolicysuitable \ totheemploymentcircumstancesmayappropriatelybeaddressedinanycasewhen H litigatingthefirstelementofthedefense.Andwhileproofthatanemployeefailedto 4 fulfillthecorrespondingobligationofreasonablecaretoavoidharmisnotlimited  p toshowinganyunreasonablefailuretouseanycomplaintprocedureprovidedby  \ theemployer,ademonstrationofsuchfailurewillnormallysufficetosatisfythe H employer'sburdenunderthesecondelementofthedefense.Noaffirmativedefense 4 isavailable,however,whenthesupervisor'sharassmentculminatesinatangible   employmentaction,suchasdischarge,demotion,orundesirablereassignment.l  #  51       r r   r ThedecisioninFaragher,writtenbyJusticeSouter,m|  #  52      ׀beganitsanalysiswithareviewof  theunderpinningsofhostileenvironmentcases. l >8 r   [A]lthoughthestatutementionsspecificemploymentdecisionswith D! immediateconsequences,thescopeoftheprohibitionisnotlimitedtoeconomicor 0"  tangiblediscrimination...and...coversmorethantermsandconditionsin #l! thenarrowcontractualsense.Thus,inMeritorweheldthatsexualharassmentso $X" severeorpervasiveastoaltertheconditionsof[thevictim's]employmentand $D # createanabusiveworkingenvironmentviolatesTitleVII.%0!$r r   &"% 8 r ****r r  0 r So,inHarris,weexplainedthatinordertobeactionableunderthestatute,asexually  objectionable#XXX Xw# XXXXenvironmentmustbebothobjectivelyandsubjectivelyoffensive,onethata  reasonablepersonwouldfindhostileorabusive,andonethatthevictiminfactdidperceive t tobeso.Wedirectedcourtstodeterminewhetheranenvironmentissufficientlyhostileor ` abusivebylookingatallthecircumstances,includingthefrequencyofthe L  discriminatoryconduct;itsseverity;whetheritisphysicallythreateningorhumiliating,ora 8  mereoffensiveutterance;andwhetheritunreasonablyinterfereswithanemployee'swork $ t performance.Mostrecently,weexplainedthatTitleVIIdoesnotprohibitgenuinebut  ` innocuousdifferencesinthewaysmenandwomenroutinelyinteractwithmembersofthe  L  samesexandoftheoppositesex.Arecurringpointintheseopinionsisthatsimple  8  teasing,offhandcomments,andisolatedincidents(unlessextremelyserious)willnot $  amounttodiscriminatorychangesinthetermsandconditionsofemployment.These   standardsforjudginghostilityaresufficientlydemandingtoensurethatTitleVIIdoesnot   becomeageneralcivilitycode.O  #  53       r(#r(#  r JusticeSouternotedthatproperapplicationofthesestandardswillfilteroutcomplaints p attackingtheordinarytribulationsoftheworkplace,suchasthesporadicuseofabusivelanguage, H gender-relatedjokes,andoccasionalteasing.o|  #  54      ׀JusticeSouternextaddressedthestandardfor  p employerliabilityforahostileenvironment,againusingtheRestatement(Second)ofAgency.Ӏ H  r  r TheCourtthenaddressedtheobjectivesofTitleVII:   8 r   AlthoughTitleVIIseekstomakepersonswholeforinjuriessufferedon  accountofunlawfulemploymentdiscrimination,itsprimaryobjective,likethat  ofanystatutemeanttoinfluenceprimaryconduct,isnottoprovideredressbutto  avoidharm....Itwouldthereforeimplementclearstatutorypolicyandcomplement l theGovernment'sTitleVIIenforcementeffortstorecognizetheemployer's X  affirmativeobligationtopreventviolationsandgivecreditheretoemployerswho D! makereasonableeffortstodischargetheirduty.Indeed,atheoryofvicarious 0"  liabilityformisuseofsupervisorypowerwouldbeatoddswiththestatutorypolicy #l! ifitfailedtoprovideemployerswithsomesuchincentive.$X"r r   r 8 r ****%0!$r r  0 r ...Iftheplaintiffunreasonablyfailedtoavailherselfoftheemployer'spreventiveor &"% remedialapparatus,sheshouldnotrecoverdamagesthatcouldhavebeenavoidedifshe '#& haddoneso.t  #  55      r(#r(#  r Finally,theCourtinFaragheradoptedthesameholdingithadadoptedinEllerth.u|  #  56         r #XXX X# XXXX  EllerthandFaraghermakeclearthattheemployerisvicariouslyliablefor ` harassmentbysupervisors.Whereaharassingsupervisoractuallyimposesatangibleemployment 8  action,theemployersvicariousliabilityisautomatic;noaffirmativedefenseisavailabletothe  ` employer.#XXX X # XXXX  8   r Wherenotangibleemploymentactionhasbeentakenbytheharassingsupervisor,the   employersvicariousliabilityisconditional;theemployermaypresentanaffirmativedefense.The   mereexistenceofanemployerpolicyprohibitingharassmentisnotsufficienttosavetheemployer p fromvicariousliabilityforasupervisors#XXX XȠ# XXXXԀharassment.Rather,ataminimumtheemployermust H disseminatethepolicytoaffectedemployeesandmustensurethatthepolicyallowsforcomplaints#XXX X๢#  p  XXXXtopersonsotherthantheharassingsupervisors.Theemployer'sdutytoexercisereasonablecareto H preventandcorrectpromptlyanysexuallyharassingbehavioralsoincludesadutytopromptly   investigatecomplaints,and,wherejustified,totakeappropriateremedialaction,whichmaywell  includeworkforcetraining.   r Whereanemployerhasaproceduretoinvestigateandresolveharassmentcomplaints,  employeeshaveadutytousetheprocedure.   r Whentheharasserisanotheremployeewhoisnotasupervisorwithauthorityoverthe ` complainantandwhocannoteffectatangibleemploymentactionconcerningthecomplainant,the 8  standardforemployerliabilityremainsnegligence:whethertheemployerkneworshouldhave  ` knownabouttheharassmentandfailedtotakepromptremedialaction.  8  #XXX X໣# XXXXh XXX XX5hXX XX5hXXX5hX5hXXX5hX5hXXX5hX5hXXX5hX5hXXX5hX5hXXX5hXXXX5h  h,  XXXX XXX X XXX X XXX X XXX X XXX X XXX X XXX X XXX X  @IINationalRailroadPassengerCorp.v.Morgan!TimelinessofChargeFiling #XXX X # XXXXԈ     r InJune2002,inNationalRailroadPassengerCorp.v.Morgan,  #  57      ׀theSupremeCourt   determined whether,andunderwhatcircumstances,aTitleVIIplaintiffmayfilesuitonevents p thatfalloutsidetherequirementthataTitleVIIplaintifffileachargewiththeEEOCeither180or H 300days aftertheallegedunlawfulemploymentpracticeoccurred.|  #  58      TheCourtconcludedthat  p theanswertothequestiondependsonwhethertheallegeddiscriminationconsistsofdiscrete H discriminatoryactsorof#XXX X+# XXXX ahostileenvironment;iftheallegeddiscriminationwasahostile   environment,whichbyitsverynatureofteninvolvesrepeatedconduct,achargeistimelyifanyact  contributingtothehostileenvironmentoccurredwithintheclaimperiod.   r AbnerMorgan,ablackmale,filedachargeofdiscriminationagainsthisemployer,#XXX Xம# XXXXԀAmtrak, X  withtheEEOCandtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFairEmploymentonFebruary27,1995.Morgan 0"  allegedthatthroughouthisemploymenthewas harassedanddisciplinedmoreharshlythanother $X" employeesonaccountofhisrace.0  #  59      ׀SomeoftheactionsaboutwhichMorgancomplained %0!$ occurredwithin300daysofhisEEOCcharge,butmanyhadoccurredpriortothattime#XXX X# XXXX period.  AfterMorganfiledsuit,Amtrakmovedforsummaryjudgmentastoallincidentsthatoccurred  morethan300daysbeforethefilingofMorgansEEOCcharge.Thedistrictcourtgranted ` Amtraksmotion;theNinthCircuitreversed. 8   r TheCourtidentifiedt#XXX X# XXXX he criticalquestionsas:Whatconstitutesanunlawfulemployment  ` practiceandwhenhasthatpracticeoccurred?*****Theanswervarieswiththepractice.  #  60      ׀}  8  ЀTheCourtheldthat adiscreteretaliatoryordiscriminatoryactoccurredonthedaythatit   happened.Aparty,therefore,mustfileachargewithineither180or300daysofthedateofthe   actorlosetheabilitytorecoverforit.|  #  61      ׀Further, discreteactsthatfallwithinthestatutorytime p perioddonotmaketimelyactsthatfalloutsidethetimeperiod,0  #  62      ׀althoughsuchactsmay H constituterelevantbackgroundevidence.  p  r Hostileenvironmentclaims,however, aredifferentinkindfromdiscreteacts.Theirvery H natureinvolvesrepeatedconduct.  #  63      ׀Harassment occursoveraseriesofdaysorperhapsyears   and,indirectcontrasttodiscreteacts,asingleactofharassmentmaynotbeactionableonitsown,  becausehostileenvironmentclaimsareoftenbasedonthecumulativeeffectofindividualacts.  #  64      ׀    r Therefore, ahostileenvironmentclaimiscomprisedofaseriesofseparateactsthat X  collectivelyconstituteoneunlawfulemploymentpractice.  #  65      Thus, providedthatanact   contributingtotheclaimoccurswithinthefilingperiod,acourtmayconsider#XXX Xࢴ# XXXXԀ#XXX XĽ# XXXXtheentiretime  periodofthehostileenvironmentforthepurposesofdeterminingliability.[|  #  66      ׀Forthepurposeof ` assessingthetimelinessofaclaimforahostileenvironment,theCourtheldthat: considerationof 8  theentirescopeofahostileworkenvironmentclaim,includingbehaviorallegedoutsidethe  ` statutoryperiod,ispermissibleforthepurposesofassessingliability,solongasanyact  8  contributingtothathostileenvironmenttakesplacewithinthestatutorytimeperiod.:0  #  67      ׀Theact   occurringwithinthechargefilingperiod,however, mustbepartofthesameunlawful   employmentpractice.=  #  68      ׀Iftheincidentwithinthefilingperiodhas norelationtotheincidents p occurringbeforethefilingperiod,thenthemostrecentincidentisnot partofthesamehostile H environmentandtheemployeecannotrecoverfortheremoteincidents.Further,iftherehasbeen  p  interveningactionbytheemployer,makingtherecentincident nolongerpartofthesame H hostileenvironment,thentheemployeecannotrecoverfortheremoteincidents.Last,ifthe   plaintiffhasunreasonablydelayedfilingacharge,theemployermayinvokethedefenseoflaches.?  #  69         #XXX X# 0 r PennsylvaniaStatePolicev.Suders!ConstructiveDischarge r(#r(#  r InPennsylvaniaStatePolicev.Suders+  #  70      ׀theSupremeCourthelda constructive   dischargeclaimwasviableunderTitleVII.Anemployeecanquitandsuefordamagesasifshe  hadbeendischargedifharassmenthascreatedworkingconditionsthatareobjectivelyintolerable. ` Further,anemployercanasserttheEllerth/Faragheraffirmativedefenseinacaseofconstructive 8  dischargewhentheemployeehasresignedbecauseofcoworkerconductorunofficialsupervisory  ` conduct.Theemployer,however,isvicariouslyliableandcannotasserttheaffirmativedefense  8  whentheemployeehasresignedbecauseoftheemployersofficialacts.    r PlaintiffNancyDrewSudersallegedthathersupervisors,officersofthePennsylvaniaState   Police,harassedhersoseverelythatshewasforcedtoresign.TheCourtaddressedtheburdenof p proofinasexualharassment/constructivedischargeclaimunderTitleVII,buildingonitsprior H harassmentjurisprudence.First,toestablishahostileenvironment,theplaintiffmustshow  p harassingbehaviorsufficientlysevereorpervasivetoaltertheconditionsofemployment.k|  #  71      ׀ H 8 r [W]ehold,toestablish"constructivedischarge,"theplaintiffmustmakeafurther   showing:Shemustshowthattheabusiveworkingenvironmentbecameso   intolerablethatherresignationqualifiedasafittingresponse.Anemployermay  defendagainstsuchaclaimbyshowingboth(1)thatithadinstalledareadily  accessibleandeffectivepolicyforreportingandresolvingcomplaintsofsexual  harassment,and(2)thattheplaintiffunreasonablyfailedtoavailherselfofthat l employer-providedpreventiveorremedialapparatus.Thisaffirmativedefensewill X  notbeavailabletotheemployer,however,iftheplaintiffquitsinreasonable D! responsetoanemployer-sanctionedadverseactionofficiallychangingher 0"  employmentstatusorsituation,forexample,ahumiliatingdemotion,extremecutin #l! pay,ortransfertoapositioninwhichshewouldfaceunbearableworking $X" conditions..0  #  72      $D #r r   r ******** %0!$ 8 r Undertheconstructivedischargedoctrine,anemployee'sreasonabledecisionto  resignbecauseofunendurableworkingconditionsisassimilatedtoaformal  dischargeforremedialpurposes.....Theinquiryisobjective:Didworking  conditionsbecomesointolerablethatareasonablepersonintheemployee'sposition t wouldhavefeltcompelledtoresign?`r r   r ********* L  8 r WeagreewiththelowercourtsandtheEEOCthatTitleVIIencompassesemployer 8  liabilityforaconstructivedischarge.$ tr r   r *******  ` 8 ' Essentially,Suderspresentsa"worsecase"harassmentscenario,harassment  L  ratcheteduptothebreakingpoint.Liketheharassmentconsideredinour  8  pathmarkingdecisions,harassmentsointolerableastocausearesignationmaybe $  effectedthroughco-workerconduct,unofficialsupervisoryconduct,orofficial   companyacts.Unlikeanactualtermination,whichisalwayseffectedthroughan   officialactofthecompany,aconstructivedischargeneednotbe.Aconstructive   dischargeinvolvesbothanemployee'sdecisiontoleaveandprecipitatingconduct:   Theformerinvolvesnoofficialaction;thelatter,likeaharassmentclaimwithout p anyconstructivedischargeassertion,mayormaynotinvolveofficialaction.A  #  73      \' '    r Thus,afterSudersaharassmentplaintiffcanestablishaconstructivedischarge!and 4 therebyobtainallthedamagesthatwouldbeavailableintheeventofaformalterminationof  \ employment!whenanabusiveworkingenvironmentis ratchetedupbeyondmerelyunlawful 4 harassmentandhasbecomesointolerablethattheemployeesresignationqualifiedasafitting   response.   XXXX II.MiscellaneousBackground l  r A.#XXX X.# XXXXTheEmployersDefenses #XXX X# XXXX D!  Hv(]*x3 r #XXX X!# XXXX  Anemployermaydefendonthegroundsofjurisdiction,thatthematterwasnotcovered #l! underTitleVIIorotherapplicablelaw;onfactualgroundsthattheallegedconductdidnotoccur; $L # thattheconductwasnotsevereorpervasiveenoughtoconstituteactionableharassment;orthatthe &$"% conductwasnotdirectedatthecomplainantbecauseofcomplainantsmembershipinaprotected (#' group.   r Thecausalconnectionwithatangibleemploymentactionmayberebuttedbyevidencethat  theemploymentactionwastakenforreasonsotherthanthecomplainantsmembershipina ` protectedclass;theemployermayarticulatealegitimate,nondiscriminatoryreasonforthe 8  employmentaction.  `  r B.#XXX X# XXXXWhatActionsQualifyasTangibleEmploymentActions?  8   r  SincetheCourts1998decisionsinEllerthandFaragher,lowercourtshavestruggledto   define tangibleemploymentaction,toestablishparametersforvicariousliability. Somecases   arefairlystraightforward.Atangibleemploymentactionoccurs,forexample,whereasupervisor x threatenstofireasubordinateifsherefusestoparticipateinsexactswithhim,andthenactually P firesherwhenshecontinuestoresisthisdemands.  #  74      ׀  (x  r Butotheractionsarelessstraightforward,andthereforemoredifficulttocharacterize. P Further,thevariousfederalappellatecourtsarenotnecessarilyinagreementonwhatconstitutesa ( tangibleemploymentaction,justastheyfailtoagreeonthedefinitionof supervisorforpurposes  ofthe_Ellerth_/Faragheranalysis.Forexample,inLeeCrespov.SheringPloughDelCaribe,Inc.|  #  75        theFirstCircuitconcludedthatevenanactionasindefiniteasthwartinganemployeesambitionto `  transfercould,insomecircumstances,constituteatangibleemploymentaction,assumingplaintiff 8"  canestablishthecausalconnection.Thecourtalsonotedthatareassignmentcouldconstitutea $`" tangibleemploymentaction. InDurkinv.CityofChicago0  #  76      theSeventhCircuitsuggestedindicta %8!$ thatdenialoftrainingcould,dependentonthecircumstances,constituteatangibleemployment  action.#XXX X# XXXX InJinv.MetropolitanLifeIns.Co.,  #  77      ׀theSecondCircuitgrantedanewtrialtoplaintiff  becausethetrialcourtfailedtoinstructthejurythattemporarilywithholdingplaintiffspaychecks h couldconstituteatangibleemploymentaction.  @  #XXX X/# XXXX r InGreenv.AdministratorsoftheTulaneEd.Fund,|  #  78      theFifthCircuitconcludedthata  h demotion,withsubstantialdiminishmentofjobduties,sufficedtoconstituteatangible  H  employmentaction.    #XXX X# XXXX r InMolnarv.Booth,"0  #  79      theSeventhCircuitupheldajuryverdictinfavorofaprobationary   artteacherwhoallegedthataftersherebuffedherprincipalssexualadvances hetookbacktheart  supplieshehadgivenher,refusedtogiveheranartroominwhichtoteach,andgaveherafailing h evaluationinherinternship(whichmeantshecouldnotgetherlicensetoteachinIndiana). @ AlthoughsixmonthslatertheSchoolBoardoverturnedtheconclusionthatplaintiffhadfailedher h internship,theSeventhCircuitstated: Theclearesttangibleemploymentactionshownin @ MolnarsevidencewasBoothsconfiscationoftheartsupplieshehadgivenher!suppliesthejury#XXX X# XXXX    couldhavebelievedwerenecessaryforhertobeabletoperformherassignedjob.#  #  80      ׀ Further,the  courtconcluded: Atleastasatemporarymatter,thenegativeevaluationBoothgave#XXX X# XXXX #XXX X%# XXXX Molnarwas   alsoatangibleemploymentaction;thejurycouldhavebelieveditspelledtheendofacareerfora `"  intern.ThemerefactthattheevaluationwasreversedmorethansixmonthslaterandMolnars 8$" careerputbackontrackdoesnotdiminishitsimportanceduringthetimeitlasted.Tohold  otherwisewouldmeanthatharassingsupervisorscoulddemoteemployeeswhorejectedtheir  advanceswithimpunity,aslongastheylaterreversedthedemotionandrestoredtheemployeesto ` theirformerpositions.TheshortdurationisnaturallyrelevanttothedegreeofdamageMolnar 8  suffered.... $  #  81        `  r Ontheotherhand,inMurrayv.ChicagoTransitAuth., %|  #  82      theSeventhCircuitaffirmed  8  judgmentasamatteroflawfordefendantCTA,rejectingplaintiffsargumentthattheCTA   Presidentsrefusaltoapprovehertravelplantoaconferenceatwhichshewasascheduledspeaker   aftersherejectedhisdinnerinvitationconstitutedatangibleemploymentaction.Thecourt x restateditsrulethat noteverythingthatmakesanemployeeunhappyisactionable,andstated: P  Theisolated,andrelativelyminor,actionsMurrayallegeddidnotsignificantlyaffectherjob (x responsibilitiesorbenefits,andtherefore,cannotbeatangibleemploymentaction.-  #  83      ׀  P #XXX Xk# XXXX r Perhapsthemostvexingunansweredquestionisthatcategoryofsexualharassmentcases 0 sometimesreferredtoassubmissioncases, casesinwhichthecomplainingemployeesubmitsto  thesexualadvancesofthesupervisor.  #  84      򀀀 TheNinthCircuitandtheSecondCircuitshave  concludedthatatangibleemploymentactionoccurswhenanemployeecomplieswitha p  supervisorssexualdemandsinordertoavoidathreatenedadverseaction.  #  85      Indeed,theNinth  Circuitstated: WejointheSecondCircuitinholdingthat,inadditiontothoseactsexplicitly  mentionedinEllerth,atangibleemploymentactionoccurswhenasupervisorextortssexual h favorsfromanemployeebyconditioninghercontinuedemploymentonherparticipationin @  unwelcomesexualacts.h  #  86      ׀ Suchaclaimmaylieeitherwhencontinuedemploymenthasbeen  h expresslyconditionedonparticipationinsexualactsorwhenthesupervisorswordsorconduct  @  wouldcommunicatetoareasonablewomanintheemployeespositionthatsuchparticipationisa   conditionofemployment.  #  87      ׀ Itisenoughthattheindividualmakingtheunwelcomesexual   advancewasplaintiffssupervisor,andthatalinktoemploymentbenefitscould[reasonably]be x inferredunderthecircumstances.  #  88      򀀀  P  r InLutkewittev.Gonzales,  #  89      theD.C.Circuitrefusedtoreachthequestion,concludingthat 0 plaintiffhadfailedtoofferadequateevidenceattrialtoestablishthatherjoborsignificant ` employmentbenefitswereconditionedonhersexualsubmissiontohersupervisor.8   #  90       8  r C.Relationshipbetween TangibleEmploymentActionand MateriallyAdverse  ActionforPurposesofaRetaliationClaim   󀀀Harassmentclaimsareoftencoupledwithclaimsofretaliation!allegationsthatwhenthe  employeecomplainedoftheharassment,theemployerorotheremployeesretaliated.A tangible ` employmentactionisnotcoterminuswiththe materiallyadverseactionprohibitedbyTitle 8  VIIsantiretaliationprovisions. AstheCourtsaidin#XXX X#ԀBurlingtonNorthernandSantaFeRRCo.  ` v.White,  #  91      whereitaddressedthescopeofTitleVIIsantiretaliationprovision: Weconcludethat  @  theantiretaliationprovisiondoesnotconfinetheactionsandharmsitforbidstothosethatare   relatedtoemploymentoroccurattheworkplace.Wealsoconcludethattheprovisioncoversthose   (andonlythose)employeractionsthatwouldhavebeenmateriallyadversetoareasonable x employeeorjobapplicant.Inthepresentcontextthatmeansthattheemployersactionsmustbe P harmfultothepointthattheycouldwelldissuadeareasonableworkerfrommakingorsupporting (x achargeofdiscrimination.|  #  92      ׀TheCourtconcludedthatalthoughthelanguageofthesubstantive P provision(section703(a))explicitlylimitsthescopeoftheprovision toactionsthataffect ( employmentoraltertheconditionsoftheworkplace, [n]osuchlimitingwordsappearintheanti  retaliationprovision.ConcludingthatCongressdidintenditsdifferentwordstomakealegal  difference,andthattheantiretaliationprovisions primarypurposeistomaintain unfettered `  accesstostatutoryremedialmechanisms,theCourtheldthattheantiretaliationprovisionwas 8"   notlimitedtodiscriminatoryactionsthataffectthetermsandconditionsofemployment. $`"  r Theantiretaliationprovision,however, protectsanindividualnotfromallretaliation,but %8!$ fromretaliationthatproducesaninjuryorharm. [A]plaintiffmustshowthatareasonable '#& employeewouldhavefoundthechallengedactionmateriallyadverse,whichinthiscontextmeans  itmightwellhavedissuadedareasonableworkerfrommakingorsupportingachargeof  discrimination.  #  93      ׀TheCourtphrased thestandardingeneraltermsbecausethesignificanceof ` anygivenactofretaliationwilloftendependupontheparticularcircumstances.Context 8  matters.T  #  94      ׀  `   XXXXIII.RecentDecisionsofNote   Ѐ 0 r Pleasenotethatmanyofthesecasesaddressmultipleissues.Iamherefocusingonlyon   someoftheinterestingharassment decisionsof2007!08,andaminmostcasesnot x mentioningissuesotherthanharassment,eventhoughthoseotherissuesmayhavebeen X presentinthecases.0r(#r(#  r  r SeventhCircuit  0 #XXX XY# 0 r TheSeventhCircuit,longoneofthemostactiveindecidingharassmentcases,continued  itsactivityduring2007!08.r(#r(#  Yuknisv.FirstStudent,Inc.,481F.3d552(7thCir.2007)! TargetAreaHarassment h  Ѐ Ms.YuknisworkedforFirstStudentasabusdriver, andapparentlymaderepeated @"  complaintstomanagersthatpersonnelatthefacilitywheresheworked showblatantdisrespect  $p" fortheirmaritalvows,watchpornography,usefoullanguage,tellvulgarjokes,...[and]gamble %H!$ openly.Sheaccusedonemanagerofreferringtoanotherfemaledriverasa fatass,ofhavingan  affairwithanotherdriver,andofmakingoffcolorremarkstotheplaintiffatwork.Sheaccused  anothermanagerofwatchingpornographyonhiscomputerinhisoffice(notinherpresence),and ` assortedothertransgressions.Thecompanyinvestigated,rebukedthosedeterminedtohave 8  gambledandsoldAvonproductsatwork,butfiredtheplaintiff forundermininginternalrelations  ` atthefacilityanddamagingthecredibilityofthefacilitysmanagement,byherincessant  8  complaining.TheDistrictCourtgrantedsummaryjudgment,andtheSeventhCircuitaffirmed,   concludingthatonlytwosuggestivecomments,ofalltheconductshedescribed,weredirectedat   her,andthosetwocommentsfellshortoftheseverityorpervasivenessnecessarytocreatean p actionableenvironmentunderTitleVII. H  r Thecourtremindedusofthedifferencebetween mereoffenseontheonehandand  p actionableharassmentontheother. Thefactthatonescoworkersdoorsaythingsthatoffend H one,howeverdeeply,doesnotamounttoharassmentifoneisnotwithinthetargetareaofthe   offendingconduct!if,forexample,thespeechorconductisoffensivetowomenandoneisaman,  oroffensivetowhitesandoneisablack.Onecouldbethetarget,thecourtpointedout,orone  couldbeinthe targetareabecauseagroupofwhichonewasamemberwasbeingvilified, X  althoughonewasnotsingledout.Thecourtwentontosay: 0"  0 r 0r(#r(#Insuggestingthealternativetermtargetarea,wedonotmeantosuggestthatthere $X" mustbeanintentionofcausingdistressoroffense.Aworkingenvironmentmaybe $D # deeplyhurtfultowomeneventhoughthemenwhocreateditweremerelytryingto %0!$ pleasethemselves....*****[T]hecreationofahostileworkingenvironmentis &"% actionableunderTitleVIIonlywhenthehostilityistoagroup(orspecificmembers '#& ofagroup),suchaswomen,whomthestatuteprotects./  #  95      ׀(#'(#(#  )$(  Jacksonv.CountyofRacine,474F.3d493(7thCir.2007)!HostileEnvironment/Affirmative  Defense   0 r BrendaJackson,SherriLisiecki,PatriciaBirchell-Sielaff,andLindaSchultzr(#r(# workedattheChildSupportDivision(CSD)ofRacineCounty,Wisconsin.While ` there,theyassert,theyweresubjectedtoconstantsexualharassmentfromCSD's 8  DivisionManager,RobertLarsen.WithinweeksofLarsen'sappointmenttothepositionof  ` Director,thewomenallegedthathebegantoengageininappropriateconducttowardthefemale  8  employeesintheCSD;hedidnotengageinsimilarbehaviortowardthemaleemployees.    r Althoughseveralemployees,amongthemacoupleoftheplaintiffs,complainedoftento   theCountysHumanResourcesManageraboutLarson,noonecomplainedaboutsexual p harassmentuntilFebruary2001.Overthenextthreemonths,womencomplainedabout H harassmentfromLarsononatleastfouroccasions;eachtime,theHRManagerinvestigated,and  p eachtime,theemployeesstatedtheydidnotwishtofileaformalcomplaint.TheCountyheld H harassmenttrainingandcounseledthemanageraboutsexuallyinappropriatebehavior.Thefifth   timeanallegationofsexualharassmentcameupagainstLarson,inMay2001,thegeneralcounsel  andtheHRManagerconvenedtheAnti-HarassmentCommitteetoconduct afullinvestigationof  Larsen'smanagementoftheCSD.<  #  96      ׀Withindays,theCountyplacedLarsenonadministrative X  leave;theCommitteerecommendedthatLarsenbeterminatedbasedonhisinappropriateconduct. 0"  Uponreview,theCountyExecutivedecidedthatdemotion,withareductioninpay,alessertitle $X" withfewerresponsibilities,andbanishmentfromtheCSD,wasanadequatepunishment. %0!$  r Althoughthedistrictcourtconcludedthattheallegedharassmentwasnotsevereor '#& pervasiveenoughtobeactionable,theSeventhCircuitthoughtthatthetestimonyasawholemight )$( besufficienttoshowthateachofthewomenwassexuallyharassedintheworkplace.Butthe  courtdidnotreachthepoint,becauseitconcludedthatinanyeventtheCountyprevailedonits  affirmativedefense.3  #  97      ׀ `  r Thecourtsanalysisisbasicbutinstructive:   8  0 r 0r(#r(#TheCounty'sfirsttaskistoshowthatittookreasonablecaretopreventorcorrect  ` anyharassingbehavior.**********Atthetimetheseincidentstookplace,the  L  Countyhadacomprehensiveanti-harassmentpolicyineffectthatplainlycovered  8  sexualharassment.Thepolicywaspostedineverydepartment,includingCSD. $  MartaKultgen,themanageroftheHumanResourcesDepartment,responded   promptlytoeverycomplaintthatreachedher. (#(#  r   NorcouldanytrieroffactfindthattheCountydidnotactreasonablytocorrect    r   harassingbehaviorthatwasbroughttoitsattention.NeithertheCounty,nor p  r   theAnti-HarassmentCommittee,norKultgencanbecriticizedforattemptingto \  r   workwithcomplainantswhodidnotwishtolodgeformalcomplaints,atleast H  r   overtheshorttimebetweenmid-February2001andearlyMay2001,whenthe 4  r   Committeelauncheditscomprehensiveinvestigation.Afterall,whenKultgen  p  r   followedupattheendofAprilwiththefouroriginalcomplainants(including  \  r   JacksonandLisiecki),shereceivedeithernoresponseoranassurancethatall H  r   waswell.Theinvestigationwasthoroughandresultedinasignificant 4  r   disciplinarymeasureforLarsen:demotionandallofitsattendantdisadvantages.    r   **********    r   TheCountyalsohastheburdenofshowingthattheplaintiffsunreasonablyfailed   r   totakeadvantageofanypreventiveorcorrectiveopportunitiesthatitprovided.   r   Onesignofunreasonablebehaviorontheplaintiffs'partisunduedelayin   r   callingtheproblemtotheemployer'sattention.8@  #  98      ׀ l  r TheplaintiffshadwaiteduntilMay2001toaskforafullinvestigation;becauseafull D! investigationhadfollowedimmediatelyupontherequest,thecourtconcludedthatsummary #l! judgmentwasrequiredintheCountysfavor,basedontheEllerth/Faragheraffirmativedefense. $D # Ї Bernierv.Morningstar,Inc.,495F.3d369(7thCir.2007)!samesexharassment!noticeto  employer   r Anemployerisliablefortheactionsofacoworkerincreatingahostileenvironmentonly  whereitknew(eitherthroughacomplaintbytheharassedemployee,throughacomplaintfrom ` someotheremployeeorthroughconstructiveknowledge)oftheallegedlyharassingconductand 8  failedtoactreasonablytosolvetheproblemonceithadknowledge.Thus,whereanemployee  ` whofelthimselfharassedbyagaycoworkerwho staredathimdidnotfollowthecompanys  8  antiharassmentcomplaintprocedure,butinsteadsentananonymousmessagetothecoworker   whichread Stopstaring!Theguysonthefloordontlikeit,thecompanyhadnonoticeof   allegedharassmentandwasjustifiedinfiringthefirstemployeewhentherecipientcomplainedof p harassmentandthefirstemployeedeniedsendingtheemail.  H Bannonv.Univ.ofChicago,503F.3d623(7thCir.2007)!subjectiveperceptionofthe  p workplaceashostileandfailuretocomplain H  r GloriaBannonworkedatArgonneNationalLaboratory.Sheandacoworkersuedthe   labsoperator,theUniversityofChicago,onanumberofgrounds,includingahostilework  environmentclaimbyBannonbasedonherMexicannationalancestry.TheSeventhCircuit  affirmedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. X   r Bannonallegedhersupervisorcalledhernamessuchas wetback, browncow,and 0"   Mexicanterroristinaminiskirt,andtoldherthather Mexicanbraincouldntunderstand $X" figures.Bannonallegedthatthisbehaviorwentonforfiveyears;however,shecontinuedto %0!$ socializewithhersupervisoroutsideofwork,includingaweeklongvacationthatsheandher '#& supervisortooktogetherwiththeirspouses,andinvitingherthenexsupervisortolunchaftershe )$( hadbeenpromoted.Further,Bannonneverreportedhersupervisorsbehavior. h+&*  r Inaffirmingthegrantofsummaryjudgment,thecourtstated WethinkthatBannons  failuretoreportReillysbehavioroverthislongperiodoftimecombinedwiththeunusually  extensivesocialrelationshipshemaintainedwithhimwouldpreventareasonablejuryfrom ` findingthatshesubjectivelyviewedherworkenvironmentashostile.2  #  99      ׀  8   r Lapkav.Chertoff,517F.3d974(7thCir.2008)!reasonablenessofemployers  h responsetocomplaint   @   r DepartmentofHomelandSecurityemployeeLeahLapkaallegedthatwhileshewasin   GeorgiaattendingamonthlongmandatorytrainingsessionataFederalLawEnforcementCenter,   shewasrapedbyafellowDHSemployee.SheclaimedthatDHSfailedtoadequatelyinvestigate x theassaultandfailedtotakereasonablestepstoprotectherfromfurtherharm.Thedistrictcourt P grantedsummaryjudgmentfortheDepartmentofHomelandSecurityandtheSeventhCircuit (x affirmed. P  r Lapkaallegedthataftershebecomeintoxicatedinthebaratthetrainingcenter,PaulGarcia ( helpedhertoherroom,andsheawakenedtofindhimsexuallyassaultingher.AlthoughLapkawas  takentoahospitalandreportedapossibledaterapethatnight,andreportedtheassaulttoFLETC  andpolicetwoweekslater,noonecontactedLapkaaboutthestatusoftheinvestigationaftershe `  returnedtoChicago.Ninemonthslater,Lapkacheckedanddiscoveredthatboththepoliceandthe 8"  agencyhadclosedtheinvestigationwithnoactiontaken,duetolackofevidence. $`"  r Afewmonthslater,LapkawasstartledtoseeGarciasbrother,whoalsoworkedforDHS %8!$ andstronglyresembledherassailant,inherofficebuilding.Severalmorevisitsfollowed, '#& includingonebyGarciahimself.Althoughtherewasnocontactduringthosevisits,Lapkawas )$( laterdiagnosedwithpostraumaticstressdisorder.Shesoughtandreceivedastatecourtorder  barringGarciafromenteringherworkplace,butwasdissatisfiedwiththeactionstakenbyagency  management. `  r Thecourtsdecisionwasinstructivebothontheissueoftimelinessandonthequestionof 8  adequacyofemployerresponse.  `  r   WebelievethatLapka'sclaimistimely.Todeterminethetimelinessofher  8  0 r 0r(#r(#contactwiththecounselor,wemustdeterminewhenthecounselingrequirement $  wastriggered.Todothis,wemustcarefullyidentifytheexactnatureofLapka's (#(#  r   claim.SeeLedbetterv.GoodyearTire&RubberCo.,---U.S.----,127S.Ct.    r   2162,2167,167L.Ed.2d982(2007).Asthedistrictcourtnoted,Lapkaisnot    r   makinga"seriesofdiscreteclaims,onearisingfromtheassault,aseparate    r   claimarisingfromthefailuretoinvestigate,andperhapsanotherclaimarising p  r   fromtheGarciabrothers'latervisitstoherworkplace."Instead,sheismaking \  r   asinglehostileenvironmentclaim"composedof"aseriesofevents.Ofcourse, H  r   inarticulatingherclaim,Lapkamustrefertoconcreteevents.Itwouldbe 4 Ѐ0 r 0r(#r(#unintelligibleotherwise.Butherlegalclaimisforthecumulativeeffectof p(#(#  r   thoseevents,andthateffectformsa"singleunlawfulemploymentpractice."See  \  r   Nat'lR.R.PassengerCorp.v.Morgan,536U.S.101,117,122S.Ct.2061,153 H  r   L.Ed.2d106(2002). 4 0 r 0r(#r(#Thequestion,then,iswhenthishostileenvironmentclaimaccrued. (#(#  r   **********   r   LapkawasrapedonJune15,2002.ShelearnedthattheDHShadclosedits "    r   investigationintotheassaultwithouttakinganyactionagainstPaulGarciaon "    r   March24,2003.JaimeGarciavisitedthe230SouthDearbornBuildingonMay "  l  r   15,2003,May22,2003,andJune12,2003.PaulGarciavisitedonAugust22, "  X   r   2003.ThesearethecomponentactsofLapka'sclaim.Morgandictatesthatifat "  D!  r   leastoneoftheseactstookplacewithinthestatutoryperiod,theclaimisnot "  0"   r   time-barred.BecauseLapkacontactedanEEOcounselorinDallasduringthe "  #l!  r   secondweekofJune2003,withinforty-fivedaysofJaimeGarcia'svisits,herclaim $X"  r   istimely.4  #  100       $D # ̀ r AstoLapkashostileenvironmentclaim,however,theSeventhCircuitconcludedthatshe &"% hadfailedtoshowabasisforemployerliability. (#'  )$(  r   Toestablishaprimafaciecase,Lapkamustestablishthat"shewas(1)subjectedto   r   unwelcomesexualconduct,advances,orrequests;(2)becauseofhersex;(3)that   r   weresevereorpervasiveenoughtocreateahostileworkenvironment;and(4)that   r   thereisabasisforemployerliability."Ericksonv.WisconsinDep'tofCorr., t  r   469F.3d600,604(7thCir.2006).Theseelementsareevaluatedinlightofthe ` 0 r 0r(#r(#"particularfactsandcircumstances"ofthecase.Lapkahasestablishedthefirst L  threeelementsbutshehasfailedtoshowabasisforemployerliability.8 (#(#  r   **********  ` 0 r 0r(#r(#Itgoeswithoutsayingthatforciblerapeis"unwelcomephysicalconductofasexual  L  nature."Rapeisalso,bydefinition,aformofharassmentbasedonsex. 8 (#(#  r   **********    r   Butharassmentdoesnothavetotakeplacewithinthephysicalconfinesofthe "     r   workplacetobeactionable;itneedonlyhaveconsequencesintheworkplace.See    r   Doev.OberweisDairy,456F.3d704,715-16(7thCir.2006).    r   ********** \  r   Lapkahasestablishedthatshewassubjecttosexualharassmentbecauseofhersex, H  r   atleastforthepurposesofsummaryjudgment. 4  r   Lapkamustalsoshowthattheharassmentsheexperiencedwas"severeor  \ Ѐ0 r 0r(#r(#pervasive"enoughtocreateanabusiveenvironmentandtoaltertheconditionsofH(#(# 0 r 0r(#r(#heremployment.MeritorSav.Bank,477U.S.at67,106S.Ct.2399,91L.Ed.2d 4 49.Thiselementhasbothanobjectiveandsubjectivecomponent.Wehaveno   reasontodoubtthat,subjectively,Lapkaperceivedherworkenvironmenttobe   hostile;shebegantoloseweightandmisswork,andshewasultimatelydiagnosed  withposttraumaticstressdisorder.ButtheDHSarguesthatnoreasonableperson  couldhavefoundthevisitsbytheGarciabrotherstobeobjectivelyhostile.The  visits,however,cannotbeviewedinisolation.Theymustbeviewedinthecontext l ofthesexualassault.X (#(#  r   Thesexualassaultalonemayhavebeensufficienttocreateanobjectivelyhostile "  0"   r   environment.Itistruethatitturnedouttobeanisolated #l!  r   incidentand,thus,wasnotpervasive.Butwehaverepeatedlystressedthatthe $X"  r   phrase"severeorpervasive"isdisjunctive.Itiswellsettledthat"evenoneactof $D #  r   harassmentwillsufficeifitisegregious."Wehaveheldthatassaultswithinthe %0!$ 0 r 0r(#r(#workplacecreateanobjectivelyhostileworkenvironmentforanemployeeeven &"% whentheyareisolated.Theseverityoftheassaultallegedinthiscasewouldbe '#& sufficienttoestablishthethirdelementofLapka'sprimafaciecase.Theresultis (#' nodifferentifonefocusesonthevisitspaidbytheGarciabrothers,whichoccurred)$((#(# Ѐ0 r 0r(#r(#shortlyafterthesexualassaultandinitscontext.Thecontinuedpresenceofa|*%)(#(#  r   rapistinthevictim'sworkplacecanrendertheworkplaceobjectivelyhostile h+&*  r   becausetherapist'spresenceexacerbatesandreinforcestheseverefearand   r   anxietysufferedbythevictim.  0 r 0r(#r(#Wemovenowtothebasisforemployerliability.**********SoLapkamust t proceedonatheoryofco-workerliability,whichisbasicallyatheoryof ` supervisorynegligence.TheDHScanbeheldliableforGarcia'sharassmentifit L  "unreasonablyfail[ed]totakeappropriatecorrectiveaction...reasonablylikelyto 8  preventthemisconductfromrecurring."Theemphasisisonthepreventionof $ t futureharassment. `(#(# ̀0 r 0r(#r(#LapkafirstfaultstheDHSforfailingtoinvestigatethealleged 8 (#(# 0 r 0r(#r(#assault.**********Theinvestigationinthiscasewasinfactinitiatedpromptly; $  ЀwhenLapkainformedFLETCpersonnelabouttheassault,theyimmediatelycalled   inaFLETCinvestigatorandtheBrunswickpolicedepartment.Thepolicetooka   formalstatementfromLapkaandalsointerviewedPaulGarcia.TheFLETC   officialsobtainedthepolicereportandforwardedit,alongwiththeFLETCreport,   totheINSOfficeoftheInspectorGeneral,whichreviewedtheclaimbefore p forwardingitbacktotheDHS.TheDHSthendecidednottopursuetheissue \ further.ThepolicereportalreadycontaineddetailedstatementsfromLapkaand H Garcia;theDHSknewthatthepolicehaddecidednottoprosecuteduetoalackof 4 evidence.Unfortunately,norapekitwastakenatthehospitalandLapkacouldnot  p remembermanyofthedetailsofthenightoftheallegedrapebecauseshewas  \ passinginandoutofconsciousness.ItwasreasonablefortheDHStobelievethat H it,too,hadinsufficientevidencetoproceedagainstGarcia.Lapkawouldhave 4 preferredadifferentresultbuttheemphasisofTitleVIIinthiscontextisnoton   redressbutonthepreventionoffutureharm.So"thequestionisnot (#(#  r   whetherthepunishmentwasproportionateto[the]offensebutwhether[the   r   employer]respondedwithappropriateremedialactionreasonablylikelyunderthe  0 r 0r(#r(#circumstancestopreventtheconductfromrecurring."WebelievethattheDHS  did.l(#(#  r   LapkaalsoclaimsthattheDHSfailedtoprotectherfromvisitsbythe D!  r   Garciabrothers.ItisnotclearthattheDHScouldhavepreventedthevisitsby 0"   r   Paul'sbrotherJaime;henevertriedtocontactLapkaandhehadnothingtodo #l!  r   withtheoriginalassault.Lapka'ssupervisortoldherthatshewouldmonitor $X"  r   Jaime'sbehavior.Thatwassufficient.ThevisitbyPaulweremoretroubling. $D #  r   ButtheDHSrespondedtoLapka'scomplaintsbyadoptinganewpolicydemanding %0!$  r   thatvisitorstoLapka'sbuildingbeon"officialbusiness."Thispolicywas &"%  r   announcedonlytwoweeksafterPaulGarcia'svisittoLapka'splaceofwork.It '#&  r   appearsthattheDHSDirectordidcontactGarcia'ssupervisorandtellhimnotto (#'  r   sendGarciato230SouthDearbornonofficialbusiness. )$(  r   **********Physicalseparationhadbeenachievedhere.EvenifPaulGarcia "  |*%)  r   couldhavereenteredthebuilding,therewaslittlelikelihoodthathewould.And,in h+&*  r   fact,PaulGarcianevervisitedagain.The"efficacyofanemployer'sremedial "    r   action"is"material"toourinquiryintothereasonablenessoftheresponse.   r   *********   r   Itisnotavailingtosaythattheemployer"shouldhavetakenevenmore t  r   aggressivemeasures."Themeasurestakenbyemployers `  r   willoften"notmeettheplaintiff'sexpectations."TitleVIIrequiresonly L  0 r 0r(#r(#thattheemployertakestepsreasonablylikelytostoptheharassment.TheDHS 8  tookreasonablestepsinthiscase;thatisenoughtojustifydenialofLapka's $ t claim.>  #  101       `(#(#  Coolidgev.ConsolidatedCityofIndianapolis,505F.3d731(7thCir.2007)!severeor $  pervasiveconductandemployerliability    r TheSeventhCircuitaffirmedthegrantofsummaryjudgmentwhereanemployee   unintentionallyviewedpornographyportrayingnecrophilia,wherethepornographywasallegedly p leftintheworkplacebyaretiredbyaretiredcoworkerwhohadbeenthesubjectofanearlier H successfulharassmentsuitbytheplaintiff.  p 0 r 0r(#r(#[E]venconsideredinlightoftheearlierharassment,thevideoincidentdoesnot H createahostilework  environment.Theencounterwasbriefandnotparticularly 4 severe-CrimeLabemployeesfrequentlyworkedwithcorpses,sopornography   depictingnecrophilia  mightnothavethesameshockingovertonesthereasitwould   inanothersetting.Moreover,evenifthepornographywassevereenough,(#(#  r   WilloughbyhadbeenretiredfromtheCrimeLabfornearlyayearwhenCoolidge   r   discoveredit.Itwouldbeoneroustorequireemployerstoconductathorough   r   searchofthepremisestomakesurearetiringemployeedidn'tleaveanything l  r   nastybehind.AndalthoughCoolidgeperhapshadgoodreasontobelievethatthe X   r   tapeswereWilloughby's-itcameoutduringthefirsttrialthatinhisjobasa D!  r   forensicscientist,Willoughbymanipulatedcorpsesinsexuallysuggestiveways, 0"   r   hencethetietonecrophilia-noevidenceshowsthattheyweremeantforher,or #l!  r   evenleftinaplacewhereshewasmorelikelytofindthemthanothers.(The $X" 0 r 0r(#r(#videolibrarywasusedbyseveralCrimeLabemployees.)AlthoughWilloughby $D # didnotneedtotargetCoolidgeinorderforhertoprevail,Yuknisv.FirstStudent,%0!$(#(#  r   Inc.,481F.3d552,554-55(7thCir.2007),webelievethatthechainofevents &"%  r   herewastooattenuatedtoshowthatWilloughbysexuallyharassedCoolidgeby '#&   r   leavingthetapesandhopingshewouldfindthem,andthattheCrimeLabwas (#'  r   responsibleforfailingtopreventthis.@  #  102         EEOCv.V&JFoods,Inc.,507F.3d575(7thCir.2007)!complaintprocedure t  ӀThecourtreversedandremandedagrantofsummaryjudgmentagainstthecorporate L  ownerofanumberoffastfoodrestaurantsinasexbasedhostileworkenvironmentcase.Here, $ t thecompanyhiredteenagersandthoseteenagersweresexuallyharassedbythe35yearold  L  restaurantmanager,whoeventuallyfiredthe16yearoldplaintiffaftershecomplainedrepeatedly $  ofhisconducttonoavail,andhermotherconfrontedtherestaurantmanager.Theyoungemployee   hadbeenunabletodeterminetowhom,otherthanemployeesintherestaurant,sheshould   complain. \ 0 r ThemaingroundsonwhichthedistrictcourtdismissedthesuitwerenotthatMerriweather 4 hadnotbeenharassedongroundsofsexbut,first,thatshehadfailedtoinvokethe  p company'sprocedureforcomplainingaboutharassment,and,second,thatfiringher  \ becauseofhermother'sinterventionwasnotactionableretaliationfor"oppos[ing]any H practicemadeanunlawfulemploymentpractice"byTitleVII,42U.S.C.s2000e-3(a), 4 becauseitwas"third-partyretaliation."Thetermrefersconfusinglytoretaliationagainst r(#r(#  r thevictimofdiscriminationbecausesomeoneelseopposedthediscrimination.P|  #  103          r   *********   r [A]nemployercanavoidliabilityunderTitleVIIforharassment(ona   r ground,suchassex,thatconstitutesaformofdiscriminationthatthestatute l  r forbids)ofoneofhisemployeesbyanotherbycreatingareasonablemechanismby X   r whichthevictimoftheharassmentcancomplaintothecompanyandgetreliefbut D!  r whichthevictimfailedtoactivate.Faragherv.CityofBocaRaton,524U.S. 0"   r 775,807,118S.Ct.2275,141L.Ed.2d662(1998);BurlingtonIndustries,Inc.v. #l!  r Ellerth,524U.S.742,765,118S.Ct.2257,141L.Ed.2d633(1998).Ifthe $X"  r harasserisasupervisorandtheharassmenttakestheformoffiringortaking $D #  r otheremploymentactionagainstthevictim,theemployer'sliabilityisstrict, %0!$  r andthatprincipleisapplicabletothetwofiringsofwhichMerriweathercomplains. &"%  r Thepresenceorabsenceofanadequatecomplaintmachineryisrelevantonlytoher '#&  r claimfordamagesfortheharassmentthatshesufferedwhileshewasemployedby   r thedefendant,andnottoherclaimofhavingbeenunlawfullyfired.   r Themechanismmustbereasonableandwhatisreasonabledependson"the t Ѐ0 r employmentcircumstances,"andtherefore,amongotherthings,`r(#r(#  r onthecapabilitiesoftheclassofemployeesinquestion.Iftheycannotspeak L   r English,explainingthecomplaintproceduretothemonlyinEnglishwouldnotbe 8   r reasonable.Inthiscasetheemployeeswhoneededtobeabletoactivatethe $ t  r complaintprocedurewereteenagegirlsworkinginasmallretailoutlet.V&J's  `  r lawyersurprisedusasecondtimebytellingusthatanemployee'sageand  L   r educationareirrelevanttotheadequacyofthegrievancemachineryestablishedby  8   r theemployer-ifitisamachinerywithinthecompetenceofa40-year-oldcollege $   r graduatetooperate,itwilldofora16-year-oldgirlinherfirstpayingjob.    r Anemployerisnotrequiredtotailoritscomplaintprocedurestothecompetence    r ofeachindividualemployee.ButitispartofV&J'sbusinessplantoemploy    r teenagers,part-timeworkersoftenworkingforthefirsttime.Knowingthatit    r hasmanyteenageemployees,thecompanywasobligatedtosuititsproceduresto p 0 r theunderstandingoftheaverageteenager.Hereaselsewhereinthelawtheknown \ vulnerabilityofaprotectedclasshaslegalsignificance.Hr(#r(#  r Ignoringthispoint,thecompanyadoptedcomplaintprocedureslikelyto  p  r confuseevenadultemployees.Theemployeehandbookthatnewemployeesaregiven  \  r hasabriefsectiononharassmentandstatesthatcomplaintsshouldbelodgedwith H  r the"districtmanager."Whothisfunctionaryisandhowtocommunicatewithhim 4  r isnotexplained.    r ************    r Ifanemployeecomplainstoashiftsupervisororassistantmanager,that   r personissupposedtoforwardthecomplainttothegeneralmanager(andthusin   r thiscasetoWilkins)evenifthecomplaintisaboutthegeneralmanager.After l  r receivingthecomplaintthegeneralmanagerissupposedto"turnhimselfin," X   r whichofcourseWilkinsdidnotdo.Nordidtheshiftsupervisorsorassistant D!  r managerreportMerriweather'scomplaintstoWilkinsortoanyoneelse.Apolicy 0"   r againstharassmentthatincludesnoassurancethataharassingsupervisorcanbe #l!  r bypassedinthecomplaintprocessisunreasonableasamatteroflaw.Faragherv. $X"  r CityofBocaRaton,supra,524U.S.at808-09,118S.Ct.2275;seealsoClarkv. $D #  r UnitedParcelService,Inc.,400F.3d341,349-50(6thCir.2005). %0!$  r  r ********** '#&  r Wereitcostlyforanemployertoprovideaclearerpathforcomplaintsabout (#'  r harassment,thecostwouldhavetobeweighedagainstthebenefits,thelatter )$(  r beingmeasuredpresumablybytheincreaseinmeritoriouscomplaintsthatthe |*%)  r clearerprocedurewouldgenerateandtheresultingreductioninworkplace h+&*  r harassment.Anunreasonablycostlycomplaintmechanismwouldnotbereasonable.   r Butitwouldcostverylittle,certainlyforacompanyofV&J'ssize,tocreate   r aclearpathforcomplaintsofharassmentandotherformsofillegal   r discrimination. t  r ********** ` 0 r Inanyevent,thedefendanthastheburdenofprovingthatithasestablishedand L  implementedaneffectivecomplaintmachinery-itisanaffirmativedefense,andV&Jhas 8  presentednoevidenceatallaboutthecostofadoptingandadministeringaneffective $ t complaintmachinery.  #  104       `r(#r(#  Bombaciv.JournalCommunityPublishingGroup,Inc.,482F.3d979(7thCir.2007) $    r Thoughanemployer reasonablycanexpectavictimofsexualharassmenttomakesome   minimalefforttofollowuponaninitialcomplaintwhentheemployerrequestshertodoso,...we   haveneverheldthatanemployeractsreasonablywhereasupervisorreceivesacrediblecomplaint \ ofsexualharassmentandnoeffortismadetocontacttheallegedvictim.;|  #  105       4  Isaacsv.HillsPetNutrition,Inc.,485F.3d383(7thCir.2007)  \  r Holdingthatsexualharassmentthatbeganinonedepartmentandcontinuedinanother 4 departmentwhenplaintiffsjobassignmentchanged,wasonecontinuouscourseofharassmentfor   purposesoftimelinessofchargefilingunderMorgan,wherethe employersresponseremained  constant...doingnothing,andher newsuperiorpickedupwhereheroldoneleftoffintermsof l harassingandintimidatingher. D!  Boumehdiv.PlastagHoldings,LLC,489F.3d781(7thCir.2007) #l!  r Reversinggrantofsummaryjudgment,andholdingthat1)hostileenvironmentsexual $D # harassmentclaimsarenotlimitedtoclaimsinwhichtheharassmentisbasedonsexualdesire! &"% commentsevincingantifemaleanimuscansupportahostileenvironmentclaim;and2)atleast  eighteensexistorsexualcommentsbysupervisorinlessthanayearstime,withnoresponseby  managementtoemployeescomplaints,wassufficientevidenceofpervasivenesstosurvive ` summaryjudgment. 8   OtherAppellateCourts  8   r DistrictofColumbiaCircuit    Ѐ Greerv.Paulson,505F.3d1306(DCCir.2007)    r Asamatteroflaw,aperserulebarringconsiderationofincidentsthatoccurredduringan x employeesabsencefromtheworkplaceisinappropriate,asitwouldprovide aperverse P incentiveforanemployertoplaceonleaveanemployeeforwhomithadcreatedahostile (x environment.Q  #  106      ׀Additionally,theplaintiffemployeeshouldbepermittedtotrytoestablishthat P eventsoccurringpriortoaleaveofabsenceweresufficientlylinkedtothoseoccurringpostleave, ( forpurposesofestablishingonecontinuingcourseofharassmentandthustimelinessunder  Morgan(inGreerthecourtconcludedthattheplaintifffailedtoestablishtheconnection).   Vickersv.Powell,493F.3d186(DCCir.2007) `   r TheDCCircuitreversedandremandedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentfor 8"  theFDIConVickershostileenvironmentclaim,concludingthatthelinebetweenthehostile $`" environmentcreatedbythefirstsupervisorandtheactionsofhis deputyturnedsuccessorin %8!$ perpetuatingtheenvironmentwerenotsoclearthatthecourtcouldconcludetheywerenotrelated '#& asamatteroflaw.Thus,becausesomeoftheallegedincidentstookplaceduringthefilingperiod, )$( thedistrictcourtshouldconsideralloftheallegationsconcerningconductbybothsupervisorsto  determinewhetherplaintiffproducedsufficientevidenceofahostileenvironmenttosurvivea  motionforsummaryjudgment. `  r FirstCircuit   `  Forrestv.BrinkerInternationalPayrollCo.,LP,511F.3d225(1stCir.2007)  8   r TheFirstCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentonhostile   environmentsexualharassmentclaim,whereinacaseinvolvingapriorfailedrelationshipbetween   coworkerharasserandallegedvictim,harasserbarragedvictimwithgenderspecificepithetsand p interferedwithherworkinrestaurant.Butbecausetherestaurantrespondedtothevictims H complaintswithprogressivedisciplineandultimateterminationoftheharasser(allwithinthespan  p ofonemonth),itsactionswerepromptandappropriateandthereforenoliabilityattaches. H  Billingsv.TownofGrafton,515F.3d39(1stCir.2008)    󀀀FirstCircuitreversedandremandeddistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenton  plaintiffshostileenvironmentclaim,whereoverthespaceofseveralyearsanddespiterepeated  complaints,plaintiffssupervisorstaredrepeatedlyatherbreasts. Thepointatwhichawork X  environmentbecomeshostileorabusivedoesnotdependonanymathematicallyprecisetest.T  #  107      ׀ 0"   Thehighlyfactspecificnatureofahostileenvironmentclaimtendstomakeitdifficulttodraw $X" meaningfulcontrastsbetweenonecaseandanotherforpurposesofdistinguishingbetween %0!$ sufficientlyandinsufficientlyabusivebehavior.Conductthatamountstosexualharassmentunder '#& onesetofcircumstancesmay,inadifferentcontext,equatewiththesortofmerelyoffensive )$( behaviorthatliesbeyondthepurviewofTitleVII,andviceversa.Y  #  108         r Thecourtaccepted, asageneralproposition,thatnoteverysuchclaimpremisedonstaring  orleeringintheworkplaceautomaticallypresentsaquestionforthejury.Weholdsimplythatthe ` recordinthiscasedoesnotpermittheruling,asamatteroflaw,thatthecircumstancesofBillings 8  employmentdidnotadduptoahostileenvironment.V|  #  109        `  r  r SecondCircuit   Patanev.Clark,508F.3d106(2dCir.2007)    󀀀TheSecondCircuitvacatedthedistrictcourtsdismissalofplaintiffshostileenvironment p andretaliationclaimspursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6),whereasecretaryin H FordhamUniversitysClassicsDepartmentallegedthatoverthespaceofseveralyearsoneofthe  p professors,whowasalsoChairofthedepartmentatvarioustimes,engagedininappropriate H sexuallychargedconductintheworkplace.Someoftheallegedconductinvolvedtheharassment   ofanotherwomaninthedepartment,butmostofitinvolvedtheprofessorswatchingof  pornography,leavinglinkstopornographicwebsitesonplaintiffscomputer,andhaving  pornographicvideotapesdeliveredtothedepartment,whichplaintiffwasrequiredtoopenand X  delivertotheharassersmailbox.UnderBellAtlanticv.Twombly,thecomplaint mustplead 0"  enoughfactstostateaclaimforreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.Z0  #  110      0  $X"(#(#  Ӏ 󀀀 r   [T]hedistrictcourtconcludedthatPlaintifffailedto %0!$ Ѐ0 r 0r(#r(#allegethatshefacedanobjectivelyhostileworkenvironment,"because[she](#(#  r   neversawthevideos,witnessedClarkwatchthevideos,orwitnessedClark   r   performingsexualacts."However,Plaintiffdoes   r   allegethatsheregularlyobservedClarkwatchingpornographicvideos.This t  r   Courthasspecificallyrecognizedthatthemerepresenceofpornographyina `  r   workplacecanalterthe"status"ofwomenthereinandisrelevanttoassessingthe L  0 r 0r(#r(#objectivehostilityoftheenvironment.Moreover,Plaintiffallegesthatshewas 8  regularlyrequiredtohandlepornographicvideotapesinthecourseofperforming $ t heremploymentresponsibilitiesofopeninganddeliveringClark'smail;andthat  ` sheoncediscoveredhardcorepornographicwebsitesthatClarkviewedonher  L  workplacecomputer.CombinedwithPlaintiff'sotherallegationsregardingClark's  8  sexuallyinappropriatebehaviorintheworkplace,includingherallegationregarding $  hisearlierharassmentofDr.Peirce,andwithFordham'sfailureto (#(#  r   takeanyactionnotwithstandingPlaintiff'snumerouscomplaints,ajurycouldwell    r 0  concludethatPlaintiffwassubjecttofrequentseverelyoffensiveconductthat (#(#  r   interferedwithherabilitytoperformhersecretarialfunctions.Thoughwhethera    r   particularworkenvironmentisobjectivelyhostileisnecessarilyafact-intensive p  r   inquiry,weconcludethatPlaintiffhasallegedsufficientfactstobe"entitled \  r   toofferevidencetosupport[her]claim[]." H  r   DefendantsalsoarguethatPlaintiffhasnotallegedthattheharassing  p  r   conductwasaimedather-letaloneaimedatherbecauseofhersex.However,  \  r   someoftheconductthatPlaintiffhasallegedwasundoubtedlyaimedather-for H  r   instance,thehardcorepornographicwebsitesonhercomputerandthe 4  r   pornography-containingmailthatClarkknewshewasresponsibleforhandling.    r   Moreover,aplaintiffneedonlyallegethatshesufferedahostilework    r   environmentbecauseofhergender,notthatalloftheoffensiveconductwas   r   specificallyaimedather.InPetrosinov.BellAtlantic,werecognizedthat   r   sexuallychargedconductintheworkplacemaycreateahostileenvironmentfor   r   womennotwithstandingthefactthatitisalsoexperiencedbymen.385F.3d210, l  r   223(2dCir.2004).Inthatcase,weendorsedtheFourthCircuit'sreasoningin X   r   Ocheltreev.ScollonProducts.,Inc.: D! ̀0 r 0r(#r(#0" (#(#Theemployercontendedthattheoffensiveconductcouldnotbedeemed$X"" (#" (# Ѐ0 r 0r(#r(#0" (#(#discriminatorybasedonsex"becauseitcouldhavebeenheard[orseen]by$D #" (#" (# Ѐ0 r 0r(#r(#0" (#(#anyonepresentintheshopandwasequallyoffensivetosomeofthemen." %0!$ Thecourtdisagreed,concludingthatajurycouldfind"[m]uchofthe &"% conduct...particularlyoffensivetowomenand...intendedtoprovoke '#& [plaintiff's]reactionasawoman."(#'" (#" (#  r   AsinOcheltree,Plaintiffpleadsfactssufficienttoallowajurytofindmuchof |*%)  r   Clark'scomplainedofconductparticularlyoffensivetowomenandintendedto h+&*  r   provokePlaintiff'sreactionasawoman.\  #  111          r NinthCircuit ` Davisv.TeamElectricCo.,520F.3d1080(9thCir.2008) 8   r TheNinthCircuitreversedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentfortheemployer  ` onplaintiffsdisparatetreatment,retaliation,andhostileenvironmentclaims.Indeterminingwhat  8  typesofconductcanrisetothelevelofanactionablehostileenvironment,thecourtobservedthat    Offensivecommentsdonotallneedtobemadedirectlytoanemployeeforaworkenvironment   tobeconsideredhostile.^|  #  112      Theplaintiff,afemaleelectricianonanotherwiseallmalejobsite, p allegedthatshewastoldnottoentertheofficetrailereventhoughmaleemployeeswerepermitted P todoso,thathersupervisorsmadeanumberofantifemalecomments,broughtdonutstothejob (x site onlyfortheguys,referredinsexistandderogatorytermstootherwomen,etc.Therewere P noallegationsofphysicalabuseoraggressivesexualadvances.Thecourtconcludedthatwhether ( theseincidentswouldbeconsideredabusivebyan objectivereasonablewomanwasaclose  question,butthereisno mathematicallyprecisetest,andgiventhefrequencyoftheconduct, it  ismoreappropriatetoleavetheassessmenttothefactfinderthanforthecourttodecidethecase `  onsummaryjudgment. 8"   Craigv.M&OAgencies,Inc.,496F.3d1047(9thCir.2007) $`"  󀀀TheNinthCircuitreversedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentonplaintiffs %8!$ hostileenvironmentclaim,where,overthecourseofanumberofmonths,plaintiffssupervisor, '#& thecompanysinterimpresident,beganbymakingrepeatedinappropriatecommentsaboutCraigs  legsandhowsheshouldwearshorterskirts,andescalatedtopersistent,repeatedrequeststhat  Craigmakelovetohim.Craigreportedthepresidentsconduct19daysafterthefirstofhis ` persistentattemptstopersuadeCraigtohavesexwithhim.Thecourtfirstconcludedthatbecause 8  plaintiffdidnotallegethatthepresidentexplicitlyconditionedhercontinuedemploymenton  ` acquiescingtosexualrelationswithhim,therewasnotangibleemploymentactionandtherefore  8  noquidproquoharassment.Ontheotherhand,thecourtconcludedthatplaintiffshostile   environmentclaimwassufficienttosurviveamotionforsummaryjudgment:thepresidents    conductfallssomewherebetweenmereisolatedincidentsoroffhandcomments,whichdonot p amounttoaTitleVIIclaim,...andseriousandpervasiveharassment,thatclearlycomeswithin H TitleVII....`  #  113      ׀  p   r FourthCircuit   EEOCv.SunbeltRentals,Inc.,521F.3d306(4thCir.2008)   r TheFourthCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedagrantofsummaryjudgmentforthe  employerinareligiousdiscriminationcase,whereaMuslimAmericanallegedthathewas X  harassedintheworkplaceinthewakeofSeptember11,concludingthattheemployerknewof 0"  theharassmentandfailedtotakeappropriatecorrectiveactiontostoptheharassment.A $X" sentenceworthquoting: Buttheeventthatshookthefoundationsofourbuildingsdidnotshake %0!$ thepremiseofourfounding!thathere,inAmerica,thereisnohereticalfaith.521F.3dat '#&  )$( ____;2008WL836409*1.   r FifthCircuit ` EEOCv._WC_&MEnterprises,Inc.,496F.3d393(5thCir.2007) 8   r TheFifthCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedagrantofsummaryjudgmentforthe  ` employerinareligiousdiscriminationcase,againwheretheharassedemployeewasapracticing  8  Muslim.ThisdecisionisvirtuallyacompanioncasetotheFourthCircuitsSunbeltRentals   decision. Inbothcases,thewakeofSeptember11thbroughtastreamofdemeaning   commentsanddegradingactions,andinbothcasestheemployeescomplainedbuttheir x complaintsbroughtlimitedresponse. P  r Inanexcellentreminderoftheframeworkinwhichahostileenvironmentclaimshould (x beanalyzed,thecourtin_WC_Ԁ&MEnterprisesstated: P  r [T]hedistrictcourtmadetwofindingsthatessentiallydisposedof (  r the_EEOC_'shostileworkenvironmentclaimonthemerits:(1)thattheEEOChad   r notshownthatRafiqlostsalesasaresultoftheallegedharassmentthathe   r suffered;and(2)thattheEEOCcouldnotbringaclaimbasedon_Rafiq_'snational   r originbecausenoneoftheharassingcommentsspecificallyreferredtothefact   r thatRafiqwasfromIndia.TheEEOCarguesthatthedistrictcourterredineach t  r respect.Weagree. `   r TostateahostileworkenvironmentclaimunderTitleVII,theplaintiffmust 8"   r showthat:(1)thevictimbelongstoaprotectedgroup;(2)thevictimwas $#t!  r subjectedtounwelcomeharassment;(3)theharassmentwasbasedonaprotected $`"  r characteristic;(4)theharassmentaffectedaterm,condition,orprivilegeof $L #  r employment;and(5)thevictim'semployerkneworshouldhaveknownofthe %8!$ 0 r harassmentandfailedtotakepromptremedialaction.Onlyelements(3)and(4)are &$"% seriouslycontestedinthiscase.'#&r(#r(#  r TheSupremeCourthasemphasizedthatTitleVII'sprohibition"isnot )$(  r limitedto'economic'or'tangible'discrimination."MeritorSavingsBankFSBv. *%)  r Vinson,477U.S.57,64,106S.Ct.2399,91_L.Ed_.2d49(1986).Rather,"[_w]hen_ p+&*  r theworkplaceispermeatedwith'discriminatoryintimidation,ridicule,and   r insult'thatis'sufficientlysevereorpervasivetoaltertheconditionsofthe   r victim'semploymentandcreateanabusiveworkingenvironment,'TitleVIIis   r violated."Harrisv.ForkliftSys.,510U.S.17,21.... t  r Forharassmenttobesufficientlysevereorpervasivetoalterthe L   r conditionsofthevictim'semployment,theconductcomplainedofmustbeboth 8   r objectivelyandsubjectivelyoffensive.Harris,510U.S.at21-22,114S.Ct.367. $ t  r Thus,notonlymustthevictimperceivetheenvironmentashostile,theconduct  `  r mustalsobesuchthatareasonablepersonwouldfindittobehostileorabusive.  L   r Id.Todeterminewhetherthevictim'sworkenvironmentwasobjectivelyoffensive,  8   r courtsconsiderthetotalityofthecircumstances,including(1)thefrequencyof $   r thediscriminatoryconduct;(2)itsseverity;(3)whetheritisphysically    r threateningorhumiliating,ormerelyanoffensiveutterance;and(4)whetherit    r interfereswithanemployee'sworkperformance.Id.at23,114S.Ct.367.No    r singlefactorisdeterminative.Id.Inshort,ashowingthattheemployee'sjob    r performancesufferedissimplyafactortobeconsidered,notaprerequisite. p  r  r ********** H  r Here,thedistrictcourtheldthatevenifRafiqcouldprovethatany  p  r harassmentoccurred,"hehasnotshownthatitwassoseverethatitkepthimfrom  \  r doinghisjob."Insoholding,thedistrictcourtappliedanincorrectlegal H  r standard.WhetherRafiqlostsalesasaresultoftheallegedharassmentis 4  r certainlyrelevanttohishostileworkenvironmentclaim;butitisnot,by    r itself,dispositive.Thedistrictcourterredinconcludingotherwise.    r Applyingthetotalityofthecircumstancestest,weconcludethattheEEOC   r haspresentedsufficientevidencetocreateanissueoffactastowhetherthe   r harassmentthatRafiqsufferedwassosevereorpervasiveastoalteracondition l  r ofhisemployment.TheevidenceshowedthatRafiqwassubjectedtoverbal X   r harassmentonaregularbasisforaperiodofapproximatelyoneyear.During D!  r thattime,Rafiqwasconstantlycalled"Taliban"andreferredtoasan"Arab"by 0"   r _Kiene_Ԁand_Argabrite_,whoalsomockedhisdietandprayerrituals.Moreover, #l!  r Rafiqwassporadicallysubjectedtoadditionalincidentsofharassment,.... $X"  r ********* $D #  r Althoughnosingleincidentofharassmentislikelysufficienttoestablishsevere &"%  r orpervasiveharassment,whenconsideredtogetherandviewedinthelightmost '#&  r favorabletotheEEOC,theevidenceshowsalong-termpatternofridicule (#'  r sufficienttoestablishaclaimunderTitleVII. )$(  r Inaddition,theevidenceissufficienttoshowthattheharassmentRafiqsuffered h+&*  r wasbasedonhisreligionandnationalorigin.First,someofthealleged   r harassmentdealtspecificallywith_Rafiq_'sMuslimfaith,including:(1)mocking   r commentsabouthisdietaryrestrictionsandprayerrituals;(2)_Swigart_'swritten   r commentthatRafiqwasactinglikea"Muslimextremist;"(3)_Kiene_'sstatementto t  r Rafiqthat"Wedon'twanttohearaboutyourreligiousbeliefs"eventhoughRafiq `  r wasnoteventalkingaboutthematthetime;(4)_Kiene_'squestiontoRafiq,"Why L   r don'tyougobacktowhereyoucamefromsinceyoubelievewhatyoubelieve?"; 8   r and(5)_Swigart_'sstatementtoRafiq,"ThisisAmerica.That'sthewaythings $ t  r workoverhere.ThisisnottheIslamiccountrywhereyoucamefrom."Also,a  `  r factfindercouldreasonablyinferthatthecommentssuggestingthatRafiqwas(1)  L   r involvedintheSeptember11thterroristattacksand(2)amemberoftheTaliban  8   r becausehe,likemembersoftheTaliban,wasMuslim,werebasedonhisreligion. $   r Withrespecttonationalorigin,thedistrictcourtfoundthattheEEOCcould    r notprevailonitsclaimthatRafiqwasharassedonthebasisofnationalorigin    r becausenoneoftheallegedharassmentrelatedtothefactthatRafiqisfrom    r India.Thedistrictcourtiscorrectthatnoneoftheharassingcomments p  r directlyreferredto_Rafiq_'sactualnationalorigin.However,apartyisableto \  r establishadiscriminationclaimbasedonitsownnationalorigineventhoughthe H  r discriminatoryactsdonotidentifythevictim'sactualcountryoforigin. 4  r Indeed,the_EEOC_'sguidelinesondiscriminationdefine"discriminationbasedon  \  r nationalorigin"broadly,toincludeactsofdiscriminationundertaken"becausean H  r individualhasthephysical,culturalorlinguisticcharacteristicsofanational 4  r origingroup."29C.F.R.s1606.1.Nothingintheguidelinesrequiresthatthe    r discriminationbebasedonthevictim'sactualnationalorigin._p  #  114      _Ԁ     Lauderdalev.Texas_Dept_.ofCriminalJustice,512F.3d157(5thCir.2007)   r Plaintiffallegedshewassexuallyharassedwhileworkingasacorrectionalofficer.The X  districtcourtgrantedsummaryjudgment;theappellatecourtconcludedthattheallegedlyharassing 0"  supervisorsbehaviorwaspervasive,evenifnotsevere:plaintiffallegedthathersupervisorcalled $X" hertentofifteentimesanightforalmostfourmonths. ThoughLauderdaledoesnotassertthat %0!$  eachphonecallcarriedsexualovertones,thefrequencyofunwantedattention,overafourmonth '#& timeperiod,amountstopervasiveharassment.r  #  115      ׀    r Buthavingconcludedthattherewasagenuineissueofmaterialfactastothecreationofa  hostileworkenvironment,thecourtthenlookedattheemployersassertionofthe ` _Ellerth_/Faragheraffirmativedefense.Theemployersantiharassmentpoliciesandeducational 8  programssatisfiedthefirstprongoftheaffirmativedefense.Plaintiffarguedthatthesecondprong  ` ofthedefense! thattheplaintiffemployeeunreasonablyfailedtotakeadvantageofany  8  preventiveorcorrectiveopportunitiesprovidedbytheemployerortoavoidharmotherwises|  #  116      ׀!   wasnotavailabletotheemployerbecauseshereportedtheharassmenttoherimmediate   supervisor.Butherimmediatesupervisor explicitlyindicatedhisunwillingnesstoactonher p complaint,andplaintiffdidnotreporttheconducttoanyoftheotherpeopleoragencieslistedin H thepolicyasavenuesforreportingsexualharassment.  p  r TheFifthCircuitimposedanarguablyheavierburdenontheemployeethanthatexplicitly H discussedin_Ellerth_/Faragher. Inmostcases,ashere,onceanemployeeknowshisinitial   complaintisineffective,itisunreasonableofhimnottofileasecondcomplaint,solongasthe  employerhasprovidedmultipleavenuesforsuchacomplaint.w0  #  117      ׀   r ThelastFifthCircuitdecisionofinterestis Abnerv.KansasCitySouthernRRCo.,513 X  F.3d154(5thCir.2008) ,wherethecourtaffirmedajuryverdictinaraciallyhostileenvironment 8"  caseawarding$125,000inpunitivedamagesbutnocompensatorydamagestoeachoftheeight $h" plaintiffs.Thetrialcourtadded$1innominaldamagesandenteredjudgmentontheverdict.The %@!$ FifthCircuitaffirmed: Weagreewiththeconclusionofseveralofoursistercircuitsthata  punitivedamagesawardunderTitleVIIand1981neednotbeaccompaniedbycompensatory  damages.Webaseourholdingsonthelanguageofthestatute,itsprovisionofacap,andthe ` purposeofpunitivedamagesunderTitleVII.x  #  118       8   r SixthCircuit  8  Clayv.UnitedParcelService,Inc.501F.3d695(6thCir.2007)    r Multipleplaintiffracediscriminationcase,withclaimsincludinghostileenvironment,   wheretheSixthCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentonplaintiffMosss p harassmentclaim.  H   XX% : 0 r #XX  ##$Mossdoesnotallegethatanyraciallyderogatorycommentsweremadeintheworkplace;  p herclaimisbasedonthetheorythatthefaciallyneutralconductofhersupervisortowards  \ herwas,infact,basedonherrace.Conductthatisnotexplicitlyrace-basedmaybeillegally H race-basedandproperlyconsideredinahostile-work-environmentanalysiswhenitcanbe 4 shownthatbutfortheemployee'srace,shewouldnothavebeentheobjectofharassment.4yж"]O  5  6&]O&  7ж"&4yж"]O  5  6t']O'  7ж"'4~ж"]O  5  67(]OK(  7ж"(4~ж"]O  5  6(]O)  7ж"O) r(#r(#   r   ӹ  4]O  5  6/*]OC*  7*% ; 0 r MossclaimsthatTerlopsingledheroutandcastigatedherforengaginginbehaviorsinwhich  herwhitecounterpartsengagedwithimpunity.Insupportofherargumentthatshewas  harassedbasedonherrace,Mosssuppliedherownaffidavitaswellasaffidavitsfromtwo  coworkers.lr(#r(#  r  r ***********  D! 0 r TheaffidavitsassertthatMosswascriticizedforconductforwhichherwhiteco-workerswere 4"  not.Mosswascriticizedforthedoughnutincident,fortherouteshetooktogettoherwork  #p! station,forleavingherworkstationtogetacupofcoffee,forusingthebathroomattheend  $\" ofherbreak,andforthesizeofherearrings.Theseaffidavitssetforthspecificconductfor $H # whichMosswasberatedandforwhichherwhiteco-workerswerenot;thus,the districtcourt %4!$ erredinfindingthattheseaffidavitsdidnotprovidesufficientdetail.& "%r(#r(#  r ************ (#' 0 r GiventhatMosswastheonlyblackemployeeinherworkareaandthatsheallegesthatTerlop )$( disciplinedherforthingsforwhichhedidnotdisciplineherco-workers,Mosshascreatedan  inference,sufficienttosurvivesummaryjudgment,thatracewasthemotivatingreasonbehind  _Terlop_'sbehavior.Accordingly,thedistrictcourterredinfindingotherwise.z  #  119      r(#r(#  r Sofar,sogood.Buthavingconcludedthatareasonablejurycouldfindthatthefacially ` neutralconductwas,infact,basedonplaintiffsrace,thecourtwentontoconsiderwhetherthe 8  complainedofconductwassufficientlysevereorpervasivetocreateanactionablehostile  ` environment.Thecourtconcludedthatitwasnot!thatthefifteenspecificincidentsspanningatwo  8  yearperiodwereforthemostpart mereoffensiveutterances,notactionableunderTitleVII.The   courtthereforeaffirmedthegrantofsummaryjudgment.    Hawkinsv.AnheuserBusch,Inc.,517F.3d321(6thCir.2008) p  r FourfemalebreweryworkersfiledasexdiscriminationandretaliationcaseagainstAnheuser H Busch;threeoftheplaintiffsalsoallegedthatamalecoworkerssexualharassmentrosetothelevel  p ofahostileenvironment.Thedistrictcourtgrantedtheemployersmotionforsummaryjudgment; H theSixthCircuitreversedastomostofthehostileenvironmentrelatedclaims.    r Oneoftheissueswas:   XX0 r #XX  $7#whetheraplaintiffallegingahostileworkenvironmentmayintroduceevidenceofother  incidentsofsexualharassmentintheworkplacedirectedatemployeesotherthantheplaintiff, l butofwhichtheplaintiffwasaware.X r(#r(#  r *********** 0"  4]O  5  0 r 68]O8  7r9% O Areviewof...4{ ]O  5  69]O9  7 9ԀSixthCircuitcaselawaddressingother-actevidence...makesclearthatwemay #l! considerevidenceofotheractsofharassmentofwhichaplaintiffbecomesawareduringthe $X" periodhisorheremployment,eveniftheotheractsweredirectedatothersandoccurred $D # outsideoftheplaintiff'spresence.%0!$r(#r(#  r ************** '#& 0 r Thisisnottosaythataplaintiff'sknowledgeofotheractsofharassmentwillnecessarily (#' establishahostileworkenvironment,orthatafactfinderisrequiredtogivesignificantweight )$( tootheractsthatareunrelatedtotheplaintiff'sallegations.Whendeterminingtherelative  weighttoassignsimilarpastactsofharassment,thefactfindermayconsiderfactorssuchas  theseverityandprevalenceofthesimilaractsofharassment,whetherthesimilaractshave  beenclearlyestablishedoraremereconjecture,andtheproximityintimeofthesimilaracts t totheharassmentallegedbytheplaintiff.4|]O  5  6>]O ?  7;?4|]O  5  6?]O?  7?`r(#r(#     r ӹ  4]O  5  6@]O@  7@% R 4]O  5  6gA]O{A  7A% S 4]O  5  6B]O+B  7YB% T 0 r Thedegreetowhichapastactofharassmentisrelevanttothedeterminationofwhethera 8  plaintiff'sworkenvironmentishostileisafact-specificinquirythatrequirescourtsto $ t determinetherelevancyofpastactsonacase-by-casebasis. Ingeneral,however,the  ` appropriateweighttobegivenaprioractwillbedirectlyproportionaltotheact'sproximity  P  intimetotheharassmentatissueintheplaintiff'scase.Thefurtherbackintimetheprioract  <  occurred,inotherwords,theweakertheinferencethattheactbearsarelationshiptothe (  currentworkingenvironment.Ontheotherhand,moreweightshouldbegiventoacts   committedbyaserial_harrasser_Ԁiftheplaintiffknowsthatthesameindividualcommitted   offendingactsinthepast.Thisisbecauseaserial_harrasser_Ԁleftfreetoharassagainleavesthe   impressionthatactsofharassmentaretoleratedattheworkplaceandsupportsaplaintiffs   claimthattheworkplaceisbothobjectivelyandsubjectivelyhostile.}  #  120      tr(#r(# Ӏ r EighthCircuit 8 Vajdlv.MesabiAcademyofKidspeace,Inc.,484F.3d546(8thCir.2007) h  r TheEighthCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentonahostile @ environmentclaim.Plaintiffwasa youthcareworkerinthesexoffenderunitofaninstitutionthat  providedresidential,educational,andvocationalcaretomaleyouthsconvictedofviolentcrimes.She  allegedshewassubjectedtoahostileenvironmentbecause1)overthecourseofsevenmonths,several x youthsmadephysicalthreatsandsexualcommentstoher;and2)threecoworkersfrequently P! commentedonherbodyandaskedheroutondates;oneofthecoworkersalsoallegedlyoncetouched (#x! herhairandonceherpantleg. %P #  r Astotheinmates,thecourtobservedthattheywereencouragedtoverbalizetheiranger, &("% frustration,andsexualfantasiesaspartofarehabilitationprogram.Thecourtthusconcludedthat ($' absentspecialcircumstancestheinmatesconductcouldnotbeattributedtotheemployerinorderto  showthattheharassmentbytheinmatesaffectedaterm,condition,orprivilegeofplaintiffs  employment.Astothecoworkers,thecourtconcludedthatthecomplainedofconductwasnot ` objectivelysevereorpervasiveenoughtoalteraterm,condition,orprivilegeofemployment.First, 8  mostofthecomplainedofconductoccurredwithinathreemonthtime.Second,plaintiffdidnot  ` allegethatshefeltphysicallythreatenedbyhercoworkersconduct;thecourtpointedtoplaintiffs  8  characterizationsofhercoworkersconductas flirting, anabsurdity,and ridiculous,in   concludingthatshedidnotfindtheconductsubjectivelyunwelcome.    Engelv.RapidCitySchoolDist.,506F.3d1118(8thCir.2007) p  r Aninterestinganalysis,applyingMorgantoasexualharassmentandconstructivedischarge H claim.Plaintiffwasbeingharassedbyacoworker;shecomplained,andtheemployersuspendedthe  p coworker.Plaintiffallegedthecoworkersharassingconductcontinuedaftertheemployer H disciplinedhim.Significantly,thecourtstatedthat toshowthatahostileworkenvironmenthas   continuedafteranemployersremedialaction,aplaintiffneednotproveanentireaccumulationof  harassingacts,amountingtoanewandfreestandinghostileworkenvironment.  #  121      ׀Plaintiffdutifully  reportedthecontinuingpostdisciplineharassment.Butthecourtconcluded: X     (0xHvXXXX0 r   r   That_Herrera_'sharassmentcontinued,andthatEngelreportedtheharassment,isnot 0"  sufficient,inandofitself,toestablishthatRCSDcouldbeliableforthehostilework "  #l! environment.Properremedialactionneedbeonly#XXXX#U#XXXX #XXXXV#XXXXreasonablycalculatedtostopthe "  $X" harassment,#XXXX!W#XXXX4P 5  #XXXXW# Sn  n,Xed$  n  nXed$  n  6W]O#  7P WXXXXandremedialactionthatdoesnotendtheharassmentcanstillbeadequateif @" it $D # isreasonablycalculatedtodoso.4P5  #XXXXY#n  nXed$  n  62Z]O#  7PFZXXXX%0!$r(#r(#  XX#   b[#   b  Sr'"'o"b\  #XX  ̠[##XXXX[#%  %\%  %\%  %\0 r 0r(#r(#4P5  n  6]]O#  7P$]4P5  n  6]]O#  7P]4P5  n  6V^]O#  7Pj^%  %^%  %_4P5  n  65_]O#  7PI_4P5  n  6_]O#  7P_4P5  n  6{`]O#  7P`%  %aXXXXWeconcludethatthereisinsufficientevidencetoshowthatRCSDisliablefor "  r'"% thehostileworkenvironmentthatoccurredpriortoApril2003.Duringthisperiod, ^(#& RCSDhadawrittenpolicyagainstsexualharassmentandaformalcomplaint J)$' procedure,yetnoemployeereported_Herrera_'sharassmenttosupervisoryemployees  untilMarch2,2003.  HerrerawassuspendedfromworkonMarch6,2003.The  firstremedialaction,setforthintheconferencereviewdatedApril3,2003,  sanctionedHerrerawithanunpaidsuspension,restrictedhisabilitytogainaccessto t buildings,assignedhimtoundergocounseling,andissuedasternwarningthat ` additionalharassmentorinappropriateconductwouldresultintermination. L  Althoughitturnsoutthatthisactiondidnotstop_Herrera_'sharassmententirely,it 8  dideliminatesomeoftheoffendingconduct,andthelawdoesnotrequirean $ t employertofireasexualharasserinthefirstinstancetodemonstrateanadequate  ` remedialresponse.4P5  #XXXXm4X" 5  n  6m]O\  7X" m4X" 5  n  6pn]O\  7X" n%  %oXXXXThatanemployerrespondsadequatelytoaninitialreportofsexual R  harassment,however,doesnotdischargetheemployer'sresponsibilitytorespond >  properlytosubsequentreportsofoffendingconductbytheharasser.Inthiscase,as *z wehaverecounted,thereisagenuineissueoffactastowhether_Herrera_'s f harassmentcontinuedafterthefirstremedialactioninApril2003.Astothetime R periodbetweenApril2003andMarch2004,weconcludethatthereisalsoa > genuineissueoffactastowhetherRCSDwasnegligentinrespondingto_Herrera_'s * continuedharassment,suchthatitmaybeliableforahostileworkenvironment  continuingtooccurafterthefirstremedialaction,andfordamageslimitedtothat  laterperiod.bi.j݌(#(# Ќ   XX#   1o#   b  0 r 0r(#r(# r S0-bs  #XX  `s##XXXXs#XXXX0(#(# " Severalconsiderationsleadtothisconclusion.Areasonablejurycould 0 concludethat_RCSD_'ssecondremedialactioninAugust2003failedtoaddressone l elementof_Herrera_'songoingharassment.RCSDdidnotreprimandHerreraforhis X continuedleeringatEngel,eventhoughshetestifiedthathecontinued#XXXXt#XXXX #XXXXv#XXXXundressing D [her]withhiseyes,#XXXXv#XXXX#XXXXLw#XXXXandthatshereportedthisconducttotheassistant 0 superintendentinMayorJune2003.Thesecondremedialaction,moreover,didnot  stopthisaspectoftheharassment.EngeltestifiedthatafterAugust2003,Herrera   continuedtogiveher#XXXXw#XXXX #XXXXy#XXXXthelook,theglance,theonceover,#XXXXGy#XXXX#XXXXy#XXXXjustashehaddone ! duringtheinitialperiodofharassment.#XXXXy#45  n  n&g]  n  6z]O   7zXXXXԀ#XXXX{#XXXXThereisagapintherecordwithrespectto " Engel'sallegationofcontinuedleering.%  #XXXX{#%_|%  %|XXXXԀ%  #XXXX|#%|XXXX**********Inanyevent,ontherecord |#  beforeus,takeninthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiff,Engelcomplainedthat h$! Herreracontinuedtoleeratherafterthefirstremedialaction,andRCSDfailedto T% " respond.bst݌@&!#(#(# Ќ   XX#   }#   b  0 r 0r(#r(# r S'"#'"b~  #XX  ̗~##XXXX~#%  %4r5  n  XXXX  6]O#  7#XXXX##45  n  6Ȁ]O#  7܀45  n  6k]O#  7%  %XXXXSignificantlyinourview,_RCSD_'sdecisiontorespondto_Herrera_'scontinued "  '"#$ harassmentbydecreasing,ratherthanincreasing,itsthreatenedsanctionsmay ($% reasonablybeviewedascontributingtoanegligentresponse.Thereasonablenessof )$& anemployer's z responsetorepeatedsexualharassment#XXXX,#XXXX #XXXX(#XXXXmaywelldependupon *%' whethertheemployerprogressivelystiffensitsdiscipline,orvainlyhopesthatno +&( response,orthesameresponseasbeforewillbeeffective.#XXXXn#XXXX4p5  #XXXX|#n  n  n  nE  n  6]O#  7p4p5  n  n  n  61]O#  7pE4p5  n  n  n  68]O#  7pL4p5  n  n  n  6?]O#  7pS4p5  n  n  n  6F]O#  7pZXXXXԀHere,RCSDhad  threatenedtoterminateHerreraifanyadditionalsubstantiatedcomplaintsof  harassmentweremadeagainsthim,buttakingEngel'scomplaintsastruefor  purposesofsummaryjudgment,RCSDdidnotfollowthroughonthispromise. t Instead,RCSDrespondedtoEngel'sadditionalcomplaintsbysuspendinghimand ` thenadvisingthatfurtherinappropriateconductcouldleadtoadministrativeaction, L  #XXXXP#XXXX #XXXXऍ#XXXXuptoandincludingtheterminationof[his]employment#XXXX#XXXX#XXXXc#XXXXԄthusopeningthe 8  possibilitythatevenathirdroundofharassmentwouldnotcostHerrerahis "  $ t job.Engelreasonablycontendsthatthisbacktrackingmayhaveemboldened  ` Herrera,and z therebycontributedtohiscontinuedharassmentofher.b~T݌ L (#(# Ќ   XX#   ̩#   b  0 r  S ; b  #XX  M##XXXX#%  %[%  %yXXXX r 4r5  #XXXX#n  nˊ  n  6‘]O#  7r֑XXXX  **********b݌ r(#r(# Ќ   XX#   #   b  S p  b˓  #XX  j##XXXXଓ#%  %`%  %~XXXX r %  #XXXX#%ǔXXXX0  Insum,Engelhaspresentedevidencethatcouldsupportareasonablefindingthat @h"   p  someelementsof_RCSD_'ssecondremedialactionwereinsufficienttoaddress  \  _Herrera_'songoingharassment,thattheremedialactiondidnotstoptheharassment, H  andthatthesecondremedialactionmayactuallyhaveencouragedHerreratofeel 4 thathecouldsafelycontinuecertainactivities.  #  122      #XXXX#b˓݌ (#(# Ќ  Brennemanv.FamousDavesofAmerica,Inc.,507F.3d1139(8thCir.2007) N  r Offensivetouchingandhumiliatingcommentsbysupervisoroveraperiodofseveral y monthswassufficientthatareasonablepersoncouldfindtheworkenvironmentadverselyaffected Q plaintiffsworkingconditions.Butthecourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummary )y judgmentfortheemployerbecauseitconcludedthatemployerhadsuccessfullyassertedthe Q affirmativedefense. )  XXXX0 r Thefirstelementhastwoprongs:preventionandcorrection.#XXXX#45  n  n7  n  6]OX  7-XXXXUndertheprevention "  "T prong,theemployermusthaveexercisedreasonablecaretopreventsexualharassment.4!5  #XXXX##n  n  n  6Μ]OX  7!XXXXԀ "  "@ Underthecorrectionprong,theemployermusthavepromptlycorrectedanysexual "  #, harassmentthatoccurred.45  #XXXX#n  ny  n  6˞]OX  7ߞXXXX$ r(#r(#  XX#   #   b  0 r  SZ&!&W!b  #XX  9##XXXX{#%  %G r 4r5  n  6q]O#  7r4r5  n  6]O#  7r(4r5  n  6]O#  7rˢ%  %ZXXXXFamousDave'sdemonstratedthatitexercisedreasonablecaretopreventsexual :  Z&!! harassment.Ithasafaciallyvalidantiharassmentpolicy,withanonretaliationprovision @"  F'"" andaflexiblereportingprocedure,listingfourindividualswhomaybecontactedinthe "  2(## caseofharassment.Althoughhavinganantiharassmentpolicyisnotinitselfenoughto "  )n$$ showthatFamousDave'sexercisedreasonablecare,distributionofavalidpolicy : provides  compellingbutnot_dispositive_Ԅproofofpreventingsexualharassment.#XXXXx#45  n  6]O#  745  n  n  n  6#]O#  77XXXXMost :   importantly,Brennemanreceivedtrainingspecificallyaboutthepolicy.#XXXX-#45  n  n  n  6]O#  7XXXXԀ***********  #XXXX#XXXXWhenBrennemaninvokedthehotlineandthepolicy,shereceivedanimmediateresponse t fromFamousDave's.b݌`r(#r(# Ќ   XX#   N#   b  0 r  S B b  #XX  -##XXXXo#XXXX r Additionally,FamousDave'smeetsthecorrectionprong.Whentheharassmentwas  B reported,FamousDave'ssentSchindlertoinvestigateandstoptheharassment. :   . Moreover,SchindlerattemptedtoworkoutanewschedulewithBrennemanandofferedto   relocatehertoarestaurantfivemilesaway.ThoughtransferringBrenneman,insteadof   Ryburn,isnotideal,FamousDave'shassatisfiedthecorrectionprong.#XXXX;#XXXXb֫݌  r(#r(# Ќ   XX#   ́#   b  0 r  S4 1 bD  #XX  ##XXXX%#XXXX r FamousDave'salsosatisfiesthesecondelementofthedefense.WhileBrenneman "  4  didnotunreasonablyfailtotakeadvantageofanypreventativeopportunities,shedid "   p  unreasonablyfailtotakeadvantageofcorrectiveopportunities.Herfailuretotake "   \  advantageofSchindler'sassistancewasunreasonable.#XXXX#4z5  n  n  n  6ױ]O#  7zXXXXBrennemantriesto%  #XXXX#%%  %T%  %rXXXXjustifynot "  H  cooperatingwithSchindler,claimingshefeared#XXXX#XXXX #XXXX/#XXXXrepercussions#XXXXu#XXXX#XXXXĴ#XXXXfromRyburn.This "  4 excuseisunreasonableherewhereSchindler,acorporatehumanresourcesofficer, "    appearedtoanyreasonableobservertobeinchargeofthesituationandsuperiorto "    Ryburn.Moreover,thepolicyexpresslycontainedanantiretaliationprovision.  #  123      ׀#XXXX #4 5  n  n\  n  6]OP  7 %XXXXbD݌r(#r(# Ќ   r Thisisoneofseveralsomewhattroublingdecisionswheretheappellatecourtseemstofind &v noproblemwiththeideathattransferringthevictimofharassmenttoanotherlocationprovidesa N reasonablesolution.Seealso Baldwinv.BlueCross/BlueShieldofAlabama, XX#   #   480#XX  ٹ#F.3d1287, & 130405(11thCir.2007) (courtconcludedtheemployerhadestablishedbothelementsofthe  affirmativedefense,statingthat:1)nothingin_Ellerth_/Faragherrequiresanemployerto conducta  fullblown,dueprocess,trialtypeproceedinginresponsetocomplaintsofsexualharassment;2) n! therequirementthattheemployerconductareasonableinvestigation doesnotincludea F# requirementthattheemployercredituncorroboratedstatementsthecomplainantmakesiftheyare %n ! disputedbytheallegedharasser;3) eveniftheprocessinwhichanemployerarrivesataremedy &F"# inthecaseofallegedsexualharassmentissomehowdefective,thedefenseisstillavailableifthe ($% remedialresultisadequate,because areasonableresultcuresanunreasonableprocess;and4)  whereemployerofferedeithertotransferallegedvictimfromHuntsville,AlabamatoBirmingham,  Alabamaortohaveanindustrialpsychologistconductacounselingprogramwiththealleged ` victimandallegedharasserandthen monitortheirrelationship,theseoptions,coupledwitha 8  warningtotheallegedharasser,was anadequatecorrectiveremedywheretheemployercould  ` notcorroboratetheallegedvictimsallegations).  8    Sf c #XXXX#  45  n  6]OP  745  n  6]OP  745  n  6#]OP  77%  %XXXX Andav.WickesFurnitureCo.,517F.3d526(8thCir.2008) f   r TheEightCircuitaffirmedagrantofsummaryjudgmentwhereitconcludedthat1)   complaintsreferringtoargumentsbysalespeopleovercustomersandgossipbetweensalepeople i werenotpervasiveenoughtogiverisetoanissueoffactastotheexistenceofahostile A environment,whereonlytwo isolatedcommentshadanysexualovertone;2)further,evenif i theseallegationsrosetothelevelofsexualharassment,wherethecompanypromptlyinvestigated, A issuedawrittenreprimandtotheoffendingemployee,andtoldplaintiffthattheprocessof  investigatinganddiscipliningtheoffendingemployeewasstillongoing,#XXXX#XXXXthecompany took  promptandeffectiveremedialactionandthereforesummaryjudgmentwasappropriate. y  Wegerv.CityofLadue,500F.3d710(8thCir.2007) !  r TheEighthCircuitalsoaffirmedagrantofsummaryjudgmentwheretwofemale #  communicationsofficersfortheLaduePoliceDepartmentsuedthecityforsexualharassmentand % " retaliation.Thecourtconcludedthatalthoughtheplaintiffsestablishedaprimafaciecaseof '"$ hostileenvironmentsexualharassment,thecityhadestablishedthe_Ellerth_/Faragheraffirmative W)$& defense.Thecourtstated: /+&( #XXXXy#?+ ` hp x X?XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#PlaintiffscontendthattheDepartmentdidnotsatisfythepreventionprongbecause  itsantiharassmentpolicywasineffectiveinthefollowingways:(1)Plaintiffs'  coworkersandsupervisorsdidnotreportobservedactsofBaldwin'sharassmentof  Plaintiffs;(2)theDepartmentdidnotoffertrainingorcounselingwithregardto t sexualharassment;and(3)theDepartmentmadenoattempttomonitorBaldwin's ` behavior.However,Plaintiffshaveofferednoauthorityfromthiscourtthatthese L  failuresrendertheDepartment'sharassmentpreventioneffortsunreasonable. 8  ***********43dz 5  #XXXX#n  nX  n  6&]O26(  73dz :43dz 5  n  nX  n  6S]O26(  73dz g43dz 5  n  nX  n  6Z]O26(  73dz nXXXXFurthermore,Plaintiffshavenotallegedthattheirdelayininvoking $ t theDepartment'scomplaintprocedurewas,inanyway,aresultofthepolicy's  ` deficiencies.Onthecontrary,PlaintiffschosenottoinvoketheDepartment's  L  complaintprocedureforatleastayearduetotheirfearsofretaliationandthatthey  8  wouldnotreceiveafairinvestigation,whichgoestothesecondelementofthe $  #XXXXd#XXXXEllerth#XXXX#XXXXԄ#XXXX#XXXXFaragher#XXXX%#XXXXԀaffirmativedefense. (#(#  XX#   r#   b  SR O b&  #XX  ##XXXX#XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#Insum,wefindthattheDepartmentactedreasonablytopreventharassmentasa R  matteroflawbecauseithadafaciallyvalidantiharassmentpolicythat,when >  invokedbyPlaintiffs,broughtanimmediateendtoBaldwin'sharassment.b&V݌*z(#(# Ќ   r   **********#XXXX# XX    i   SK#XX  ̔##XXXX# XX     b  SNKb  #XX  N##XXXXm#XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#PlaintiffsalsocontendthattheDepartmenthasnotsatisfiedthecorrectionprongas N amatteroflawbecause:(1)ithadbothactualandconstructivenoticeofBaldwin's : harassmentviaitsemployeesobservationoftheharassmentpriortoMurphy's &v complaint;(2)itsinvestigationofPlaintiffs'complaintwasflawed;and(3)its b remedialactionwasharshandskewedinfavorofBaldwin.b݌N(#(# Ќ   XX#   -#   b  S=b  #XX  ̂##XXXX#%  %x0 r 0r(#r(#4at5  n  6]Oede  7at4at5  n  6Y]Oede  7atm4at5  n  6]Oede  7at%  %XXXXThecorrectionprongrequirestheDepartmenttodemonstratethatit#XXXX#XXXX #XXXXC#XXXXexercised  reasonablecare...tocorrectpromptlyanysexuallyharassingbehavior.#XXXX#XXXX#XXXX1#XXXXFaragher,#XXXX{# | 524U.S.at807,118S.Ct.2275.XXXXԀTherefore,inapplyingthecorrectionprong,#XXXX#XXXX #XXXXn#XXXXthe h employer'snoticeoftheharassmentisofparamountimportance....#XXXX#XXXX#XXXXP#4#5  n  nctiv  n  6]O  7#4#5  n  nctiv  n  6]O  7#4#5  n  n#ctiv  n  6]O  7#XXXXԀ***********b݌T(#(# Ќ   XX#   ̲#   b  S6b  #XX  2##XXXXt#%  %(%  %F0 r 0r(#r(#4#5  n  6]O  745  n  67]O  7K45  n  6]O  7%  %45  n  6]O  74 5  n  6n]O  74 5  n  6!]O  75%   % XXXXPlaintiffsassertthattheDepartmenthadactualnoticeofBaldwin's%   #XXXX#% V%   % %  %XXXXharassmentprior 6 toNovember5,2002,becauseatleastonesupervisor,whowasdesignatedto  " receiveharassmentcomplaintsundertheDepartment'spolicy,observedthe ! harassment.Plaintiffsfurthercontendthat,becausethepolicyrequiredemployees " whoobservedharassmenttoreportit,theircoworkers'observationofBaldwin's # harassmentalsoconstitutedactualnoticetotheDepartmentpriortoMurphy's $ complaint.However,whereanemployerhasacomplaintproceduredelineatingthe n%  individualstowhomnoticeofharassmentmustbegiven,employeeobservationsare Z&!! notrelevanttotheactualnoticeinquiry.#XXXX#XXXXb݌F'""(#(# Ќ   XX#   #   b  0 r 0r(#r(# r S(($(#b  #XX  {##XXXX#XXXX   " Rather,becausetheDepartmenthasapublishedpolicythatprovidesa (($# procedureforreportingsuspectedharassment,Plaintiffsmusthaveinvokedthis )%$ procedureinordertoestablishactualnotice.#XXXX#XXXXPriortoMurphy'scomplainttoLt. *&% BakeronNovember5,2002,whichprovidedactualnoticetotheDepartment, +&& MurphyadmitsthatshefailedtoinformanyDepartmentsupervisororanyother  individualdesignatedbythepolicythatshewasbeingsexuallyharassedby  Baldwin.**********b8݌(#(# Ќ   XX#   #   b  Sjb  #XX  ̶##XXXX#0 r 0r(#r(#4d5  n  6]O208  7d4d5  n  6]O208  7d4d5  n  62]O208  7dF%  %XXXXPlaintiffsalsoassertthattheDepartment'scorrectionofBaldwin'sharassmentwas j notreasonablypromptbecausetheDepartmenthadconstructivenoticeofsuch  V harassmentpriortoMurphy'scomplaintviasupervisorandcoworkerobservationof  B Baldwin'sinappropriateconduct.#XXXX#XXXXAnemployeecanshowanemployer's  . constructiveknowledgeofsexualharassmentbydemonstratingthat#XXXX#XXXX #XXXXQ#XXXXtheharassment   wassosevereandpervasivethatmanagementreasonablyshouldhaveknownofit.#XXXX#XXXXbG݌ (#(# Ќ  #XXXXK#XXXX0 r 0r(#r(##XXXX# XX   ?+ ` hp x X?b  SH E b  #XX  2##XXXXQ#XXXXThedistrictcourtconsideredthefollowingsixinstancesindeterminingwhether H  constructivenotice,priortoMurphy'scomplaint,shouldbeimputedtothe 4  Department:(1)Baldwin'scommenttoSgt.Wagnerwithregardto_Weger_'s#XXXXD#XXXXbreast  p  reduction#XXXX#XXXXԀsurgeryinFebruary1999;(2)Baldwin'sremarktoSgt.WagnerandLt.  \  BakerwithregardtoMurphy'sappearanceinOctober1999;(3)theincident H  witnessedbyDet.Normaninthewinterof2001,whichendedwithMurphystating 4 thatshecouldnot#XXXX#XXXX #XXXX#XXXXstand#XXXX#XXXX#XXXX#XXXXBaldwin;(4)Officer_Bonney_'sobservationofBaldwin   touchingMurphyandattemptingtotickleheraftershetoldhimtostopwhere   MurphyeventuallytoldBaldwintoleaveheralone;(5)Det.Lucas'sobservationof  Baldwintouching_Weger_'sshouldersandWegerrollinghereyes;and(6)the  September2002incidentwhereOfficer_Bonney_ԀandSgt.WagnersawBaldwin  rubbingMurphy'sshouldersandMurphygrimacedandturnedawayfromBaldwin.b݌l(#(# Ќ   XX#   _#   b  0 r  SNb  #XX  ;##XXXX}#XXXX r 0r(#r(#Thedistrictcourtfound,asamatteroflaw,thattheseinstancesdidnotimpute @z!  @z!  N constructivenoticetotheDepartmentthatBaldwinwassexuallyharassingthe @f!  @f!  : Plaintiffsbecausetheyoccurredoverasubstantialperiodoftimeandnosingle & officerobservedmorethanthreeincidents.Thoughthebehaviorattributedto @ !  @ !   Baldwinisreprehensible,thesixinstancesobservedbyDepartmentemployeeslack  therequisitepervasivenesstosupportafindingthatit#XXXXI#XXXX #XXXX$#XXXXwasobvioustoeveryone.#XXXXj#XXXX#XXXX#4ov"5  n  n-  n  6]Oppor  7ov""XXXX  Therefore,asamatteroflaw,constructiveknowledgethatBaldwinwassexually  harassingthePlaintiffscannotbeimputedtotheDepartmentbeforeitreceived r  actualnoticeviaMurphy'scomplaintonNovember5,2002.***********#XXXX( #XXXXb݌^!(#(# Ќ  #XXXX #b  b   XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#Finally,Plaintiffscontend,despitethefactthatBaldwin'sharassmentendedtheday #, ofMurphy'scomplaint,thattheDepartmentfailedtosatisfythecorrectionprong $  becauseitsinvestigationofMurphy'scomplaintwasflawedanditsremedialaction %!! washarshandskewedinfavorofBaldwin.Generally,wheretheemployerresponds &!" toasexualharassmentcomplaintinsuchawayastopromptlystopthesexual '"# harassment,thereisnobasisforfindingemployer'spostcomplaintactionsnot x(#$ sufficientlycorrective.#XXXXO #b 0 ݌d)$%(#(# Ќ   r 0  **********%&(#(# 0 r 0r(#r(#XXXXPlaintiffsalsocontendthattheDepartment'spostcomplaintactionsdonotsatisfy +2'' thecorrectionprongbecausetheywereharshandskewedinBaldwin'sfavor.  However,#XXXX#XXXX #XXXX#XXXX[i]fanemployerhas...noticeofharassmentbuttakesimmediateand  appropriatecorrectiveaction,theemployerisnotliablefortheharassment.#XXXX&#XXXXԀ#XXXX#XXXXԀHere,  asourpreviousanalysisestablished,theDepartmenthadnoticeofBaldwin's t harassmentonNovember5,2002.WhenChiefWickenhauserbecameawareof ` Murphy'scomplaintthefollowingday,hetookimmediateactiontodiscussthe L  claimswithMurphy,investigatethem,anddistanceBaldwinfromPlaintiffsby 8  temporarilyrelievinghimofhissupervisorydutiesforthecommunicationsofficers $ t andinstructinghimnottoenterthecommunicationsareaunlessinthecompanyof  ` anothersupervisorandforaworkrelatedpurpose.#XXXXW#4U5  n  6<]OAy  7UPXXXX L (#(#  XX#   #   b  S ; b  #XX  -##XXXXo#%  %#%  %AXXXX0 r 0r(#r(#Therefore,thereisnogenuineissueoffactwithregardtothetimelinessand   adequacyoftheDepartment'scorrectiveactions.Thus,thedistrictcourtcorrectly z  foundthattheCityofLadueactedreasonablytopreventandpromptlycorrect f  sexuallyharassingbehavior....#XXXX_#4U5  n  63]OAy  7UG4U5  n  6]OAy  7UXXXX R   XX#   ̥#   b݌ (#(# Ќ    b  SUb  #XX  ##XXXX# XX     SK#XX  ##XXXX6#4!U5  n  6]OAy  7U4"U5  n  6o]OAy  7U4#U5  n  6"]OAy  7U6% $ %$XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#Plaintiffs#XXXX#?+ ` hp x X?XXXXalsocontendthatthedistrictcourterredinfindingthat,asamatteroflaw, K thePlaintiffsunreasonablydelayedreportingBaldwin'sharassment.Inorderto 7 satisfythesecondelementofthe#XXXX#XXXX_Ellerth_#XXXX#XXXXԄ#XXXX7 #XXXXFaragher#XXXXz #XXXXԀaffirmativedefense,the # Departmentmustshowthat#XXXX #XXXX #XXXXQ!#XXXXthe[Plaintiffs]unreasonablyfailedtotakeadvantage  ofanypreventativeorcorrectiveopportunitiesprovidedbythe[Department]orto  avoidharmotherwise.#XXXX!#XXXX4 z5  #XXXX"#n  nWX  n  n#X  n  6"]O   7 z"4 z5  n  n#X  n  6|$]O   7 z$XXXXԀThough#XXXX%#XXXX #XXXX%#XXXXproofthatanemployeefailedtofulfillthe  correspondingobligationofreasonablecaretoavoidharmisnotlimitedtoshowing  anyunreasonablefailuretouseanycomplaintprocedureprovidedbytheemployer, o ademonstrationofsuchfailurewillnormallysufficetosatisfytheemployer's [ burdenunderthesecondelementofthedefense.#XXXX&&#XXXX#XXXX (#XXXXEllerth,#XXXXT(#XXXXԀ524U.S.at765,118 G S.Ct.2257;#XXXX(#XXXXԀ#XXXX)#XXXXFaragher,#XXXX^)#XXXXԀ524U.S.at80708,118S.Ct.2275.#XXXX)#XXXXԀ#XXXX*#XXXXԀ********b݌3(#(# Ќ   XX#   U*#   b  Srb"+  #XX  *##XXXX+#XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#PlaintiffsadmitthattheyknewtheDepartment'santiharassmentpolicywasineffect  attheinceptionofBaldwin'sharassmentandthattheyweretoinvokethe  Department'scomplaintprocedurethefirsttimetheywereharassed.However,   Murphydidnotreporttheharassmentforoverayear,andWegeronlydidsowhen ! directlyquestionedaboutBaldwin'sconducttowardherduringChief u" _Wickenhauser_'sinvestigation.Therefore,absentsomecrediblebasisforPlaintiffs' a# admittedyearlongdelayinreportingBaldwin'sharassment,theCityofLaduehas M$  establishedthesecondelementoftheaffirmativedefense.b"+R+݌9% !(#(# Ќ   XX#   ̷+#   b  S&"x&!b/  #XX  F/##XXXX/#XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#Plaintiffscontendthattheirdelaywasnotunreasonableinlightoftheircredible &"" fearsofretaliationandtheirbeliefthattheywouldnotreceiveafairinvestigation '## duetoBaldwin'sand_Wickenhauser_'scloserelationship.Werecognize#XXXX<0#XXXX #XXXX1#XXXXthe (#$ enormousdifficultiesinvolvedinlodgingcomplaints%  #XXXX2#%2%  %2%  %2XXXXaboutdiscriminationinthe )$% workplace,includingsexualharassment,#XXXX3#XXXX#XXXX3#45  n  n%X  n  63]O  73XXXXԀspecifically,#XXXX5#XXXX #XXXXR5#XXXXthegreatpsychological {*%& burdenitplacesononewhoisalreadythevictimofharassmenttorequirethat g+&' persontocomplicatefurtherhisorherlifewiththeramifications,bothlegaland  otherwise,ofmakingacomplaint.#XXXX5#XXXX45  #XXXX6#n  nl4X  n  n7X  n  67]O  7+7XXXXԀWefurtheracknowledgethatthisburdenis  evengreaterwhere,ashere,thevictimsofharassmentperceiveabiasinfavorof  theirharasseronthepartoftheindividualthatwillinvestigatetheirharassment t complaint.However,astheFirstCircuitobserved:b//݌`(#(# Ќ   XX#   ̻8#   b  S B b:  #XX  ^:##XXXX:#%   % T;% % %%r;XXXX0 r 0r(#r(#0" (#(#Reportingsexuallyoffensiveconductbyasupervisorwouldformanyor  B mostemployeesbeuncomfortable,scaryorboth.Butbecausethiswilloften  . orordinarilybetrue,astheSupremeCourtcertainlyknew,itsregime   necessarilyrequirestheemployeeinnormalcircumstancestomakethis   painfuleffort#XXXX;#XXXXiftheemployeewantstoimposevicariousliabilityonthe    employerandcollectdamagesunderTitleVII.#XXXX=#XXXXԀInshort,forpolicyreasons   representingacompromise,morethanordinaryfearorembarrassmentis z  needed.b::݌f " (#" (# Ќ   XX#   J>#   b  SH  b?  #XX  @?##XXXX?#0 r 0r(#r(#0" (#(#************b??݌H " (#" (# Ќ  b  b@  XXXX0 r 0r(#r(##XXXX@#XXXXAccordingly,Plaintiffsmustdemonstratea#XXXXVA#XXXX #XXXXA#XXXXtrulycrediblethreatofretaliation,#XXXX B#XXXX#XXXXpB#XXXXԀin 7 ordertorendertheirdelayreasonable.#XXXXB#XXXXb@@݌#s(#(# Ќ   r   ************* b #XXXX  thecontextofthecourtsconclusionthattheemployeralsofailedtoestablishthe_Ellerth_/Faragher f affirmativedefense,concludingthatalthoughthecityhadanantiharassmentpolicy,it didnot > executeitssexualharassmentpolicyingoodfaith,wherethecity didnotallowFreytesTorres  complainttobeheardbysomeonewhowasnotdirectlysupervisedbyherharasser,pressuredher  toretractherformal,writtencomplaint,andthenusedtheabsenceofaformalcomplainttojustify v atruncatedinvestigationandanabsenceofpunishment.'  #  125      ׀  N  r #XXXXC#e_n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  n  [n  n  n  n  n  n  n  ]