Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30030/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30030-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30030

LAURIE ANCONA REINE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:06-CV-673

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this Title VII case, Laurie Reine alleges sex discrimination and

retaliation by her employer, Honeywell International Inc. The district court

granted summary judgment in Honeywell’s favor, determining that Reine had

not created any genuine issue of material fact on either claim. We AFFIRM.

Reine began working as an operator at Honeywell in 1994 at its

Hydrofluoric Acid Unit in Geismar, Louisiana. In July of 2002, Reine was

promoted to relief backup board operator and transferred to the “D” shift under

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 21, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-30030 Document: 00511009728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2010
No. 09-30030

2

the supervision of John Gautreau, for whom she worked until July of 2005.

During that time, Reine contends that Gautreau made a number of

discriminatory statements. She does not allege that Gautreau engaged in any

inappropriate touching or sexual advances.

Reine asserts that Gautreau was rude, offensive, and harsh. She cites a

number of instances where he used inappropriate language and made overtly

personal remarks about Reine’s abilities and performance, though only a few of

these made any reference to her sex. Reine was able to identify 15-20 instances

of harassment in her three years on Gautreau’s shift. Reine also introduced

evidence that Gautreau treated other female employees and her AfricanAmerican co-workers quite poorly. She provided deposition testimony that

Gautreau displayed similarly demeaning behavior towards all of his

subordinates, including several white males.

In approximately February 2005, Reine complained to management about

Gautreau’s actions. She met with Honeywell’s Operations Manager, Plant

Manager, and Human Resources Manager. The company conducted an

investigation. Gautreau admitted to making two of the statements. Honeywell

required Gautreau to attend coaching sessions for his behavior. In July 2005,

Reine was promoted and transferred away from Gautreau’s supervision.

Reine further claims that Honeywell engaged in unlawful retaliation after

she complained about Gautreau’s behavior. She alleges that she was denied a

bonus in late 2005, and that Gautreau failed to call her for overtime around the

same period. Reine also asserts that she was denied promotions in March and

October of 2005, as well as in mid-2006.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same

standard as the district court. Noble Energy, Inc. v. Bituminous Cas. Co., 529

F.3d 642, 645 (5th Cir. 2008). “In determining whether a genuine issue as to any

material fact exists, [the court] must view the evidence in the light most

 Case: 09-30030 Document: 00511009728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2010
No. 09-30030

3

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551

F.3d 344, 348-49 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Reine seeks relief under Title VII, arguing Gautreau’s behavior created a

“hostile work environment” at Honeywell. A hostile work environment claim

arises in cases where harassment occurred, but no tangible adverse employment

action was taken. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 753-54 (1998).

If an employee proves a hostile work environment claim against her immediate

supervisor, the employer is subject to vicarious liability. Id. at 765. 

A plaintiff who alleges a hostile work environment claim pursuant to Title

VII must typically prove five elements: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2)

she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on

sex; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment;

and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and did not

take prompt remedial action. LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d

383, 393 (5th Cir. 2007). Proof of the fifth element is not required where, as

here, the purported harasser is a supervisor. Id. at 393 n.2. 

The district court in this case concluded that Reine was unable to prove

that Gautreau’s treatment was “based on sex” as required by the third element.

The “critical issue” in determining whether workplace activities constitute

harassment based on sex is “whether members of one sex are exposed to

disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the

other sex are not exposed.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S.

75, 80 (1998) (citation omitted). “Title VII is not a shield against harsh

treatment at the workplace; it protects only in instances of harshness

disparately distributed.” Jackson v. City of Killeen, 654 F.2d 1181, 1186 (5th

Cir. 1981). 

Reine’s allegations easily prove that Gautreau was insulting and

demeaning. More must be shown, though: did Gautreau’s behavior evidence a

 Case: 09-30030 Document: 00511009728 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2010
No. 09-30030

4

specific discriminatory animus against Reine because of her sex? Reine’s

evidence itself undercuts any inference of sex discrimination. Testimony from

numerous employees – male and female – demonstrates that Gautreau was an

“equal opportunity” harasser. When the conduct is equally harsh towards men

and women, there is no hostile work environment based on sex. See Butler v.

Yselta Indep. Sch. Dist., 161 F.3d 263, 270-71 (5th Cir. 1998). 

This high standard for judging hostility is specifically intended to prevent

Title VII from becoming a “general civility code” for the workplace. Faragher v.

City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (citation omitted). Reine bore the

burden to prove that Gautreau’s behavior towards female employees was more

severe than his treatment of males in the same position. See Oncale, 523 U.S.

at 80. She has not done so. 

Additionally, Reine alleges that Honeywell unlawfully retaliated against

her following her discrimination complaint. In order to establish a prima facie

case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she engaged in an activity

protected by Title VII; (2) an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) a

causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. McCoy

v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551, 556-57 (5th Cir. 2007). Assuming that the

plaintiff makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate

nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment action. Id. at 557. If the

employer satisfies this burden, the plaintiff bears the ultimate responsibility to

prove that the employer’s proffered reasons are a pretext for its true

discriminatory motivation. Id. 

The district court determined that even if Reine could prove that

Honeywell engaged in adverse employment actions, she did not demonstrate a

causal link between her discrimination complaint and the alleged adverse action,

nor did she rebut Honeywell’s non-retaliatory reasons for its behavior. Reine’s

retaliation claims stem from the denial of a single overtime opportunity and the

 Case: 09-30030 Document: 00511009728 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/21/2010
No. 09-30030

5

denial of a discretionary bonus, both of which occurred approximately ten

months after her complaint was filed. She also alleges that she subsequently did

not receive three promotions in 2005 and 2006.

On summary judgment, Honeywell offered non-retaliatory reasons for each

event. Honeywell introduced testimony that Gautreau followed proper company

protocol when assigning overtime to a different employee on the date that Reine

identified. Honeywell also showed that most employees at the plant did not

receive the bonus that Reine claimed to have lost. In fact, the evidence showed

that the board operator – the highest ranking employee on any given shift –

received the discretionary bonus to the exclusion of all others.

As to the alleged failures to promote, the evidence demonstrated that

Reine actually was promoted to backup board operator after the filing of her

complaint. Concerning her applications for a further promotion, Honeywell

offered uncontradicted testimony that the decision-makers at the plant

unanimously concluded that Reine was not yet qualified for the job. 

A pretext is shown only if the adverse employment action would not have

occurred “but for” the protected conduct. Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d

601, 608 (5th Cir. 2005). Reine’s subjective belief and conclusory allegations of

retaliation are insufficient to demonstrate pretext. Id. Therefore, Reine has not

met her initial burden to prove retaliation. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-30030 Document: 00511009728 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/21/2010