FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 12, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1093 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00141 -CV -BH -M RO NNY BA RR OW, ROSEMARY FERGUSON, CURTIS GREEN, W ILLIE JANUARY, TONY LE TT, RANDY MAYE, NATHANIEL RICHARDS ON, GE ORG IAW IL LI AMS , Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 12, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ro nny Barr ow , Ro se m ar

y F er guso n, Curt is G re en , W ill ie January , T ony L ett, Randy

May e, N athanie l R ic hard son an d G eo rg iaW ill iam s a ppe al the summ ary j udgm ent entered for Ge orgia Pacif ic Corporation (“ GP ”) on their ra ce d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms u n d e r 4 2 U . S . C . s e c t i o n 1 9 8 1 . We a f f i rm. Stand ard of R eview

W e re vie wagr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o. S ee E vanst on I ns. Co . v. Stonewall S urplus Lines Ins. Co. , 111 F. 3d 85 2, 858 (11th Cir. 1997). Sum m ary j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he n “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f

ac t and

. . . the m ovin g party

is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56( c) . “ Inm ak ing thi s de te rm inatio n, the c ourt m ust vie wa ll ev ide nc e an d m ak e all rea sonable inferences in favor of the par ty oppo sing s umm ary

j udgm ent.” Haves v. City

of Miam i, 52 F. 3d 91 8, 921 (11th Cir. 1995).

D isc us sio n3

T he e m plo y ee s j oinin the ir

c om pla int and i n th is a

ppe al avari ety

of indiv idual claim s of disparate treatm ent under section 19 81. A ll of the em ploy ees al le ge ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t ba se d onr ac e, but G eo rg iaW ill iam s do es not ap pe al th e su m

m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h er co m pl ai nt of h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t. Ronny Bar row a lleges that GP did not prom ote him because of his rac e. Rosem ary Fe rg usona lle ge s th at

she w as tr an sf

er re d and c onstru ct ive ly

dis ch ar ge d be ca

use she is m arrie d to an Afr ican Am erican. G eorgia W illiam s alleges that she was t r a n s f e r r e db e c au s e o f

h e r r a c e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts e v e r e dth e e mp l o ye e s ’ c l a i ms fo r tr ia l and e nte re d se parate opi nio ns and s um m ar y j udgm en ts f

or G P ag ai nst each em ploy ee. A lthou gh the em ploy ees contend that they endured “ shared expe ri en ce s” and tha t the hara ssm en t the y f ac ed w as sim ilar, the y

do n ot c ont en d th atth ei r cl ai m s ar e in te rd ep en de nt . A . H o s t i l e Wo rkE n v i r o n me n tC l a i ms A pla int if f es ta bli she s ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im by sho w ing “ (1 ) t h a th e b e l o n g s t o ap r o t e c t e dg r o up ; ( 2 ) th a th e h a s b e e n s ub j e c tt o u n w e l c o me hara ssm en t; (3 ) that the hara ssm en t . . . [ w as ] ba se d onapr ote ct ed c hara ct er ist ic of the e m plo y ee . . . ; ( 4) that the hara ssm en t w as suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to4

al te r the te rm s and c ondi tio ns o f em plo ym en t and c re at e a dis cr im inator ily abusi ve working environm ent; and (5) that the em ploy er is re spon sible for such en vir onm en t un de r ei the r a the or y of vic ar iou s or

of dir ec t l ia bil ity . ” Mi lle r v. K en nw orth o f D oth an , 277 F . 3d 1 269, 127 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . T he f ourth e le m en t, w he the r the c ondu ct

w as “ suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the c ondi tio ns o f em ploym ent and create an abusive working environ m ent,” is the elem ent that often te sts the le git im ac y

of m ost hara ssm en t c la im s; and tha t t es t i s tr ue he re . G upt a v. Fla. Bd. O f Re gents, 212 F.3d 571, 583 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). To establish that harassing cond uct was sever e or pervasive, an em ploy ee m ust m ee t bo th a

sub j ec tiv e an d ob

j ec tiv e te st. S ee Me ndoz a v. Bo rd en , 195 F . 3d 1238 , 124 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . T he e m plo y ee m ust e sta bli sh n ot o nly

that he subj ec tiv el y

pe rc ei ve d th e en vir onm en t a s ho sti le , but that a r ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d pe rc ei ve the e nvi ro nm en t t o be hos til e an d a busi ve . S ee W atkin s v. Bo wde n, 1 05 F.3d 13 44 , 13 55 -5 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . The “ m ere u tt eran ce o f an . . . ep ith et w hic h e nge nde rs of

fe nsi ve f ee lin gs i n an e m

plo y ee . . . doe s no t suf fi ci en tly a ff ec t the c ondi tio ns o f em

plo ym en t. ” H ar

ri s v. F orkli ft

S y s. , I nc . , 114 S. Ct. 367, 370 (199 3) (internal quotation s and citations om itted). “ Racial slurs spok en by

co-w orkers ha[ve] to be so ‘ com m onpl ace, overt and denigrating th at they cre ate[] an atm osph ere charged w ith racial hostility .’ ” E dwar ds v. W allace5

Cm ty . Co ll. , 49 F . 3d 1 517, 152 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ( quot ing E E O C v . Be ve ra ge Canne rs , I nc . , 897 F . 2d 1 067, 106 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . O nly w he n th e w orkpl ac e is

“ pe rm eate d w ithdis cr im inator y int im idatio n, r idi cu le , and i nsul t tha t i s suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the c ondi tio ns o f the e m plo ym en t and create an abusive working environm ent,” is the law violated. Harris, 114 S.Ct. at 37 0 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Se ve n of the e m plo y ee s, Ro nny

Barr ow , Ro se m ar

y F er guso n, Curt is G re en , W illie January , T ony

Le tt, Randy

May e, and Nathaniel Ric hardson, contend that the district court erred in granting summ ary j udgm ent against their hos tile work en vir onm en t c la im s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that e ac h e m

plo y ee f ai le d to es ta bli sh tha t the hara ssm en t w as suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the working conditi ons. W e agre e. G re en ’ s a lle ga tio ns are the m ost sub stanti al and c onsi sts of tw o c at eg or ie s: racia l sym

bols andrac ial slurs. About the rac ially offensive sym

bols, Gr een te sti fi ed that he sawdis play s of

the r eb el f

la g ontoo l bo xe s and h ar d hats, the le tte rs “ KKK ” on a

ba thr oom

w al l and o n ablo ck -s awc onso le , and a noo se in an oth er e m plo y ee ’ s lo ck er . About

the r ac ia l sl ur s, G re ente sti fi ed that M ike Fa ulkne r, asup er int en de nt o n th e fi rs t sh if t, c al le d G re en“ nig ge r” thr ee ti m es in one y ear, repeatedly

called him

“ boy ,” and told h im

two or three tim es that he wa s6

g o i n g t o k i c kG r e e n ’s “b l a c ka s s ” ; th a th i s s up e rv i s o r , R o l a n dD u k e , c a l l e dh i m a “n i g g e r ” an dt o l dh i m th a ti f h e l o o k e da t“th a tw h i t e g i r l ” h e w o u l d“c u t ” h i m; t h a tth e s up e r i n t e n d e n to f th e M a i n t e n a n c e d e p a rt men tc a l l e dGr e e n “ b l a c kb o y” o n o n e o c c a s i o n ; an dth a tR o y B l a c k , an o t h e r s up e rv i s o r , o n c e c a l l e dh i m a“du mb ass.” GP set forth its Equal E m ploym ent OpportunityPolicy (“ EE OP ”) in an E m plo y ee H an dboo k w hic h w as dis tr ibu te d to a ll ne w ly -h ir ed e m plo y ee s. T he Po lic y e nc our ag es e m

plo y ee s to r ep ort hara ssm en t t o th ei r im m ed ia te sup er

vis or an d, if not sa tis fi ed w iththe r es pons e, to suc ce ssi ve ly hig he r le ve ls o f supe rv isi on up to th e Plant H um an Resources Manager or Plant Manager. T he Policy alternatively

perm its em

ploy ees to by

pass their superviso rs and either 1) r eport hara ssm en t di re ct ly

to the P lant H um anRe sour ce s M an ag er or P lant M an ag er , 2) re port t o G P' s c or

por at e E E O de partm en t, or 3) m ak e an ony

m ous co m

pla int s thr oughatol l- fr ee c om

pla int hot lin e ope rate d by

an ou tsi de ve ndor . A ll thi s inf orm at ionis post ed

thr ough out

the plant, inc lud ed

in anannua l l ette r to em pl oyees, an d d is cu ss edat p eri od ic pl an t t rai ni ng ses si on s. T he r ec or d is und isp ute d th at G re enf ai le d to use the pr oc ed

ur es and pol ic ie s of

G P fo r re portin g r ac ia l hara ssm en t and tha t G P pr om ptl y r em ed ie d th e offenses that did com e to its attention upon the filing of this li tigation . Gr een7

al le ge s t ha t h e co m

pl ai ne d t o h is supe rv is or , Duk e, only about th e incident that Fa ulkne r ca lle d hi m

a“ nig ge r” and tha t D uke r es pond ed by say ing “ y ou i s a nig ge r. ” G re ente sti fi ed

that he und er sto od the pol ic y and p ro ce dur e fo r re portin g harassm ent, but Gr een did not report Faulkner’ s conduct to the Hum an Resources Mana ge r or

the plant m an ag er

upo n r ec ei vin g th is unsa tis fa ct or y r es pons e fr om Duke, as provided bythe harassm ent policy . Gr een also did no t call the toll-fre e, co m pla int hot lin e w he re he c oul d have le ft an anony m ous co m

pla int . A lth ough G P ne ve r re ce ive d ac om pla int of hara ssm en t f

ro m G re enabout

the c ondu ct

he co m pl ai ne d o f in th is laws ui t, Gree n a dm it s t ha t, af te r he fil edhi s l aws ui t, GP tho ro ughl y

inv es tig at ed

his c om pla int ; and h e w as sa tis fi ed w iththe r es ult s of

the investig ation. G P interview ed Duke about his racial com m ents, and D uke was subs equently

term inated as a re sult of the inv estigation . GP also interviewed Faulkner, who adm itted to us ing th e w ord “ nigg er, ” although not in th e m anner al le ge d b y

Green . Fau lk ne r was su sp en de d wi th ou t p ay . And , th e le tt ers “ KKK” ha ve be en rem ov ed . Although th e sym

bols andslurs about which he com plains were discrim inatory

and offensive, G reen has not presented evidence that the workplace w as “pe rm eate d w ith‘ dis cr im inator y int im idatio n, r idi cu le , and i nsul t’ that i s

‘ suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the c ondi tio ns o f [h is] e m plo ym en t andWe note that in addit i o n t o fa i l i n g t o establish sever e and pe rvasive ha rassment, most of the 1 plaintiffs have failed to de monstrate a basis for holding GP liable . Out of these six employ ees, f our never repor ted any kind of ac tionable ra cial discrimin at ion to GP, although all admitted they understood the pr ocedur e for repor ting hara ssment. And, of the two employees that did complain, one admitted that GP investig ated his complaint and pu n i s h ed t he per son responsible for the hara ssment. 8 create an abusive working environm ent.” Harris, 114 S.Ct. at 370. G reen has pr es en te d e vid en ce of

iso la te d, spo ra dic ins tanc es of r ac ia l hara ssm en t ov er

his m or e than f

ourte eny ears of

e m plo ym en t w ithG P. T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y g r a n t e ds u mmary j u d g me n ta g a i n s tG r e e n ’s h o s t i l e w o rke n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. Upon a re view of the r ecord, we conclude that the allegation s of the other em ploy ees ar e less substant ial -- both in term s of fre quency and offensiveness -- than th ose of

G re en . S om e al le ge that the y sawthe le tte rs “ KKK ” an d c onf ed er at e flag decals, and suffere d isolated, sporadic racial slurs. N othin g in the record shows that this offensive conduct occurred on a continuo us basis o r even for a shor t and i nte nse pe ri od. I nst ea d, the r ec or d r ef le ct s th at the se f ewc om m en ts oc curr ed r an dom ly

thr ough out

the e m plo ym en t. T he a lle ga tio ns d o no t m ee t the standard of se ve re and p er

va siv e hara ssm en t. S ee , e . g. , H ar ri s, 114 S . Ct . a t 37 0; Gupta, 212 F.3d at 583. T he district court, there fore, properly granted summ ary j udgm en t. 1

B. Barr ow ’ s F ai lur e to P ro m ote Cl ai m9

Barr ow contends that he was denied several pr om otion s to a repairm an po si ti on be cau se of h is race . To pr ev ai l o n a cla im of f ai lu re t o p ro m ot e, a plaintiff m

ust sh ow (1) he is a m em ber of a protected class; (2) he w as qualified an d a ppl ie d f or the pr om oti on; ( 3) he w as r ej ec te d de spi te his qua lif ic at ion s; and (4 ) oth er e qua lly or le ss qua lif

ie d e m plo y ee s w ho w er e not

m em be rs of the pr ote ct ed c la ss w er e pr om ote d. S ee L ee v. G T E F lor ida , I nc . , 226 F . 3d 1 249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2000). The parties do not d isput e that Bar row is a m em ber of a pr ote ct ed c la ss, he a

ppl ie d f or the pr om oti ons, and the pos iti ons w er e giv ento whi te em pl oyees. GP contends th at Bar

row w as not qualified for the posi tion, and it provid es m an y r ea sons f or his la ck of qua lif ic at ion , suc h a s B ar

ro w ’ s in ad equa te w el din g ability ; lack of skills in th e ar eas of hy draulics, pneum atics, m echanical tr an sm iss ion , and m oto r lin e- up; abse nte ei sm ; and f ai lur e to f oll owsig nif

ic an t sa fe ty pr oc ed ur es . B ar

ro wha s no t pr es en te d e vid en ce of pr et ex t. B ar

ro w pr es en te d on ly

his ow n un subs tanti at ed

opi nio n th at

he w as qua lif

ie d f or the posi tio n. B ec au se Barr owdid not e sta bli sh tha t he w as qua lif

ie d f or the pos iti on, th e d is tri ctco ur t p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t.

C . F e r g u s o n ’s D i s c r i mi n a t o ry T r a n s f e r an dC o n s t r

u c t i v e D i s c h a r g e C l a i ms10

Fe rg usonarg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in en te ri ng s um

m ar y j udgm en t ag ai ns t t wo o f he r cl ai m s o f di sc riminat io n. Th e fi rs t i s a p ur po rte d t ran sf

er cl ai m . The sec on d i s a c la im

of c on st ru ct iv e d is ch arg e. Ferguson contend s that she was transferre d based on h er m arria ge to an A fr ic an -A m er ic an . A lth oughF er guso n r ai se d th is arg um en t i n he r re ply br ie f in the dis tr ic t c ourt, he r co m pla int did not a lle ge thi s c la im , and the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not a ddr es s it . E ve n if

thi s c la im

w as pr ope rl y

be fo re us and w e as sum ed that sh e co uld e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se , F er guso n f ai le d to r eb ut the le git im at e, non d i s c r i mi n a t o ry re a s o n a d v a n c e db y GP f o r h e r tr a n s f e r . S e e Te x a s De p ’to f

C mty. A ff ai rs v. Burd ine , 101 S . Ct . 108 9, 109 4 ( 1981 ); Mc D onne ll D ougl as Co rp . v. G re en , 93 S . Ct . 181 7, 182 4 ( 1973 ). F er guso n he ld a te m por ar y r ec ep tio nis t posi tio n; whe n th e fu ll- tim e re ce pti oni st r et ur ne d f ro m m ed ic al le av e an d no re m ai nin g c le ri ca l w ork r em ai ne d f or he r to d o, G P tr an sf

er re d F er guso n to a ut il it y po si ti on in si de th e p la nt . Fe rg usona lso c ont en ds tha t sh e w as c onstru ct ive ly dis ch ar ge d ba se d onthe host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t and r ac ia l hara ssm en t. T o m ai nta in a c onstru ct ive discharge claim

based on ho stile work environm ent, F erguson m ust sh ow that her11

w orkin g c ondi tio ns w er e “ so d if fi cu lt . . . that a

r ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d have f

el t co m pe lle d to r es ign . ” P ipk ins v. Ci ty of T em ple T er ra ce , F la . , 267 F . 3d 1 197, 1201 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). “ T he standard f or pr ovi ng c onstru ct ive dis ch ar ge is hig he r than th e standard f or pr ovi ng a host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t, ” H ipp v. L ibe rty N at ’ l L if e In s. Co . , 252 F . 3d 1 208, 1231 (11th Cir. 2001). Fer guso n, as e xplained, failed to m eet even the standard for a hostile work e nvironm ent. S he cannot, theref ore, m eet the higher standard for constructive discharge.

D . Wi l l i a ms ’s I n e f

f e c t i v e A s s i s t a n c e an dD i s c r i mi n a t o ry T r a n s f e r C l a i ms

G eo rg iaW ill iam s, pr oc ee din g pr o se , a lle ge s th at she r ec ei ve d in ef

fe ct ive a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l an dth a tG P d i s c r i mi n a t o r i l y t r a n s f e rr e dh e r . B o t h c l a i ms fa il. “ [A ] . . . party

doe s no t have any

r igh t t o ane wtr ia l i n ac ivi l su it be ca use of ina de qua te c ouns el , but

ha s a s it s r em edy

asui t a ga ins t the a tto rn ey f or m al pr ac tic e. ” Me kde ci By and T hr oughMe kde ci v. Me rr el l N at . L ab or at or ie s,12

711 F. 2d 1 510, 152 2- 23 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) ( quot ing W at son v. Mo ss, 619 F . 2d 7 75, 776 (8th Cir. 1981 )). W ill iam s a lso arg ue s th at G P tr an sf

er re d he r fr om

aG re en ed

uti lity pos iti on to a D ry er s ut ili ty

pos iti on b ec au se of

he r ra ce . S he a lle ge s th at G P m ove d aw hit e wom an in to he r job an d p ai d o th er em pl oyees o ve rti m e to pe rfo rm he r job . To establish a prim a fa cie ca se of discrim inatory transfer , a

plaintiff m

ust sh ow that she 1) w as am em

be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss, 2) w as qua lif

ie d, 3) suf

fe re d an a dve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on , and 4) wa s re pl aced by som eo ne ou ts id e th e p ro te ct edcla ss . Hinson v. Clinch County , G eogia Bd. of Educ. , 231 F. 3d 82 1, 828 (11th Cir. 2000 ). A n a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ionr es ult s inase ri ous an d m at er ia l c hange in the te rm s, c ondi tio ns, or

pr ivi le ge s of

e m plo ym en t. S ee D av is v . T ow n of L ak e Park, Fla. , 245 F. 3d 12 32, 1239 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). T he em ploy ee’ s subjective view of the sig nif

ic an ce and a dve rs ity

of the e m plo y er ’ s a ct

is not c ontro lli ng; the em plo ym en t a ct ionm

ust be m at er ia lly

a dve rs e as vie w ed

by ar ea sona

ble pe rs on in the c ir cum stanc es . S ee id. a t 12 39- 40. W il li am s ca nn ot est ab li sh th atsh e su ffer edan ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on . G P co nte nds that W ill iam s’ s j ob d uti es and r es pons ibi lit ie s w er e es se nti al ly the sa m e in h er

ne wpos iti on a s th ey

w er e in h er

pr ev iou s po sit ion . W ill iam s ha s no t pr es en te d a dm iss ibl e ev ide nc e to r ef ute thi s f ac t. H er ba ld a sse rt ionthat he r “

j ob13

responsib ilities changed su bstantially ” is insufficient to withstand su m m ary j udgm en t. S ee H oli fi el d v. Re no, 115 F . 3d 1 555, 156 4 n. 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . T he d i s t ri ct co u rt , t h er ef

o re , p ro p er l y g ra n t ed s u m m ary ju d g m en to n Wil l i ams’s di sc riminat ory

tra ns fer c la im . C on cl us ion For the fore goin g reasons, the j udgm ents of the district court are AFFIRMED.