The Honor able Richa rd Mills, United St ates District Judge f or the Centra l District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

desig nation. 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Fi le N am e: 07a 0419 n. 06 Fi le d: June 20, 200 7 N o. 04- 5874 UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S IX TH C IR C U IT Mara ly n S . Jam es , ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) U

NI TE D S TA TE S D IST RICT v. ) COURT FOR THE MIDDLE ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ) Metropolitan Governm ent of Na shvil le ) and Davidson Coun ty

Na shvil le Public ) Li b r a ry, ) ) OPIN ION D ef en dant- Appe llants . )

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ) Before : GILM AN and C OOK, Cir cuit Jud ges, and MILLS , D istrict Jud ge. * RIC HAR

D M ILLS, Distr ict Judge. I. PROCEDURAL HI STO RY The M etropolitan Governm ent of Na shvil le and Davidso n Countyoperates the Nashville Public Library (collectively

“ the Governm ent”). Mar alyn Jam es be gan w orkin g f

or the L ibr ar

y in 1971 a s a“ L ibr ar ian I . ” Jam es sue d th e2

G ove rn m en t onApr il 30, 200 3, a lle gin g c la im s un de r the A m er ic an s w ith Dis ab il it ie s Act (th e “ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 11 , et se q. , the A ge D isc ri m inatio n in Em pl oym en t Act(th e “ ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 6 21 , et se q. , and T itl e V II of

the Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e , et seq . The district court dism issed the A D A and A D E A c la im s onsum m ar y j udgm en t and J am es pr oc ee de d to tr ia l on he r T itl e V II hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t and r et al ia tio n c la im s. O n M ay 14, 200 3, the j ur y f ound the G ove rn m en t l ia

ble f or r et al ia tio n and aw ar de d Jam es $42 , 000 in co m pe nsator y dam ag es . T he G ove rn m en t m ove d to have the ve rd ic t se t a sid e unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Civil Procedure 50(a) , c laim ing th at the evidence did not sh ow that Jam es suffer ed an ad v er s e e m

p l o ym en tac t i o n . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed th e G o v ern m en t ’s m oti on. W e rev ers edth e d is tri ctco ur t an d re m an de d. Se e Ja m es v . M etropo litan G ov ernm en t of

Na shv ill e , 159 F . App’ x 18 6 ( 6thCi r. 200 5) . S ubse que nt t o our de ci sio n, the S upr em e Co urt de ci de d B url ing ton No rth ern & San ta F e R ail wa y Co . v . W hit e , — U. S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006), addressing whether T itle VI I re ta liatio n m

ust be e m plo ym en t or

w orkpl ac e re la te d and h owharm fu l an a ct ion m us t b e to co ns ti tu te ret al ia ti on . Id . a t 24 16. Jam es appe al ed our de ci sio n, and the Suprem e Court re versed and rem anded in lig ht of B url ing ton No rth ern . See Jam es3

v. M etropo litan G ov ernm en t of Na shv ill e , — U . S. —, 127 S . Ct . 336 , 166 L . E d. 2d 7 ( 2006 ). Appl y ing B url ing ton No rth ern , w e consider whether the district court shou ld h av e gr an te d th e G ove rn m en t’ s R ule 50( a) m oti on. II. F AC TS A s r ec ount ed

in our pr ev iou s de ci sio n, Jam es a cquir ed r ec or ds, r ai se d f

unds , cata log ue d m at er ia ls, and p er fo rm ed oth er ta sks a s aL ibr ar ian 1. F ro m 197 1 to 1994 , she r ec ei ve d pe rf

orm an ce r at ing s pr im ar ily of “ out standi ng” and “ ab ove average. ” In 1994, the L ibrary transfer red Jam es to its m ain branch and prom oted her to “ Librarian I- and-a-half. ” In 1996, Jam es rec eived a negative perform ance ev al ua tio n w ithr es pe ct

to the spe ed

of he r w ork. S he kne wthat sh e w as not cata log uin g m at er ia ls a s qu ic kly a s he r co w orke rs . In July 1999 , Jam es becam e a “ Librarian II ” via a r eclassification of library j ob titles. He r re spon sibili ties rem ained unchangedand the speed of her w ork re m ai ne d un sa tis fa ct or

y . P er fo rm an ce e va luatio ns f ro m 199 6 th ro ugh 2001 consist ently

criticize d Jam es’ outpu t. F or instance, Jam es’ 1999 perform ance evaluation no ted that she was catalogui ng “ j ust ov er 2 titles per hour (as opposed to the 7- 8 e xpe ct ed ) . . . Co nti nue d lo wout put in he r pr im ar

y j ob r es pons ibi lity

is not a cc ep ta ble and w ill have se ri ous co nse que nc es if the sit ua tio n is not co rrec te d.”4

O n O ct obe r 1, 200 1, Jam es ’ sup er vis or , L ind a N ef

f, gave Jam es ade ad lin e to c at al ogue ac oll ec tio n of boo ks. Jam es c onsi de re d th e de ad lin e unf ai r an d th e re sul tin g stre ss l ed

he r to s ee k m ed ic al a tte nti on f or he ad ac he s and h ighblo od p r e s s u r e . J a mes ’ d o c t o r , M i c h a e l C a l l a w a y, M . D . , a d v i s e dh e r t o t a k e s e v e r a l d a ys of f w ork. H e al so s en t the L ibr ar y ale tte r not if

y ing it that Jam es w as “ to l im it stress at w ork, specific ally no overtim e and wor

king at a pac e consistent with her abilities du e to her m edical condition .” D r. Callaw ay later diagnosed Jam es as ha vi ng “ m il d c og ni ti ve dysfu nc ti on rel at in g t o s tre ss at wo rk .” O n O ct obe r 3, Jam es w ro te ale tte r co m pla ini ng tha t sh e w as be ing subj ec te d to “ hara ssm en t” and a “ host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t. ” Jam es r eque ste d a t ra n s fe r b ec au s e t h e h o s t i l i t y wa s d et ri m en t al t o h erh ea l t h . On e o f t h e l et t er ’s recipients, L ibrary

Dir ector D onna Nicely , c alled Jam es into her office on O ctober 9 to dis cuss Jam es’ com

plaint. Supervisors Suliang Feng and Chase Adam s wer e present at the m eeting. A dam s told J am es “ if y ou will j ust vo lunteer to take a de m oti on, thi s w ill a ll be ove r w ith . ” Jam es did not vol unt ee r to t ak e a de m oti on and the Librar

y did no t approve her transfer . The L ibrary investig ated her co m pl ai nt an d o n Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 1, co nc lu de d i t h adno m eri t. By the end of 2001 , Jam es’ poor produ ctivity caused her to fa il an annual ev al ua tio n. T he L ibr ar

y a dvi se d Jam es that sh e w oul d be f ir ed if he r pr oduc tiv ity5

did not im pr ove . O n January

29, 200 2, Jam es f

ile d an E E O C c harg e ag ai nst the Gov ern m en t al le gi ng ag e d is cri m in at io n, d is ab il it y di sc riminat io n, an d re ta li at io n. She re ceived a “ right to su e letter” on January 31, 2002. T hat sam e day , Jam es subm itt ed ale tte r se ek ing ala te ra l transf er to “ L ibr ar ian I I- au dio vis ua l. ” D es pit e be in g ra nk edfir st on th e li st of app li can ts , Jam es di d n ot rece iv e an in te rv ie w. T he L ibr ar

y sc he dul ed

ape rf orm an ce r e- ev al ua tio n f

or Jam es on M ar ch1, 2002 , but the r e- ev al ua tio n w as pos tpo ne d f or am onth a t Jam es ’ r eque st. B y Apr il 1, Jam es w as una

ble to cata log ue an ave ra ge of 6 i te m s pe r hour , agoa l the Library had given her. T he Library did no t discipli ne Jam es. Instead, it gave her tim e to im

prove her productivit y

and offer ed to assist her in that regard. To that end, the L ibrary

accom m odated Jam es’ request to adjust lights aroundher com puter and provid e her w ith special com puter glasses. T he Library also offere d te ch nique s f

or Jam es to im

pr ove he r out

put . Jam es f ile d ase co nd r et al ia tio n c la im w iththe E E O C and r ec ei ve d a“ ri ght to sue” letter on April 16, 2002 . She sued the Library and the Metropolitan G ove rn m en t of

N as hvi lle and D av ids on C ounty on Apr il 30, 200 2. T he L ibr ar

y gave Jam es unt il May

16, 200 2, to inc re as e he r cata log ue av erag e to 6 i te m s p er h ou r. By May 9, Jam es was a ve rag in g 5 .75 it em s p er h ou r. H ow ev er , on M ay

13, 200 2, Jam es ’ ne ur olo gis t, D r. A lan B ac hr ac h, inf orm ed the6

L ibr ar y that Jam es c oul d no t r et

ur n to he r j ob b ec au se she c oul d no t ke ep up w ith the quo ta s. T ha t sam e day , Jam es w ro te the G ove rn m en t’ s be ne fi ts d ep ar tm en t t o say that if the L ibrary

did no t accom

m odate her w ith a posit ion at her curre nt level of L ibr ar ian I I, she w oul d a ppl y f or adis ab ili ty

pe nsi on. In Ju ne 20 02 , th e Lib rary offer edto tra ns fer J am es to a Lib rari an I po si ti on . Jam es ref used the dem otion and applied for a disabilitypension . On N ovem ber 19, 200 2, the L ibr ar

y inf orm ed Jam es that i f she did

not a cc ep t a de m oti on s he w oul d be c harg ed

a s a bse nt w ith out

le av e an d su

bj ec t t o di sc ipl inary

a ct ion . T he L ibr ar

y inf orm ed the Be ne fi ts B oard

that i t “ of

fe re d to a cc om

m oda te [J am es ] a t a

le sse r posi tio n w ithc ur

re nt s al ar y . ” H ow ev er , the L ibr ar

y did not dis cl ose that the sa lary

f or the le sse r posi tio n w oul d, a ft er thr ee m onths, be re duc ed to a le ve l tha t w as le ss than Jam es ’ L ibr ar ian I I sa lary . B ec au se the L ibr ar y sa id i t c oul d a cc om

m oda te Jam es , the Be ne fi ts B oard r ej ec te d he r cl ai m for a disability

pension on April 2, 2003. Jam es sough t reconsideration, which was als o d en ie d. Jam es rec eived her last pay check in Marc h 200 3. When she not iced that her fam ily health insurance prem ium had not been dedu cted, she im m ediately notified t h e G o v ern m en t . J ames t o o ka $ 2 0 9 .2 0 p er s o n al ch ec kt o th e G o v ern m en t ’s payroll departm ent to pay her prem ium . She continued to m ake paym ents each7

m onth her disability

pension appeal w as pending . In late July 2003 , Jam es re ce ive d ale tte r fr om

CI GN A c an ce lli ng h er

f am ily he al th i nsur an ce due to nonpaym ent of prem ium s. H owever , the le tter w as a m istake and the insu rance wa s never cance lled. S he took an early service pension and term inated her em plo ym en t onor

about Marc h 1, 200 3. Jam es sued the Governm ent, and the jury decided in her favor on a T itle VI I re ta liatio n c la im . T he G ove rn m en t m ove d f or j udgm en t un de r Ru le 50( a) . T he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n, b ut we rev ers ed . See Jam es , 15 9 F .App ’x 18 6. T he S upr em e Co ur

t r ev er se d and r em an de d our de ci sio n purs uant t o B url ing ton No rth ern . See Jam es , 127 S . Ct . 336 . Upon re m an d, w e ag ai n c onc lud e that the Governm ent is entitled to j udgm ent under Rule50(a).

III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W T his c ourt r ev ie w s adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of am oti on f

or j udgm en t a s a m at te r of law de novo . E

sta te of R idd

le e x re l. R idd

le v . Sou the rn F

arm B ure au Li fe I ns. Co . , 421 F . 3d 4 00, 408 ( 6thCi r. 200 5) . T he c ourt vi ew s th e ev ide nc e in t h e l i g h tmo s tf

a v o r ab l e t o th e n o n mo v i n g p a rt y. G ray v. Toshiba Am . C onsu me r Prods., Inc. , 263 F. 3d 59 5, 598 (6th Cir. 2001). It w ill affirm the j ury ’ s verdict unl es s th er e w as “ no l eg al ly suf fi ci en t e vid en tiary

ba sis f or ar ea sona

ble j ur y to find for [the prevailing] party .” See Fed. R.C iv.P. 50(a).8 IV . A N A LY SI S

“ Inan a ct ionund er

T itl e V II , the pla int if

f m ay pr ove unl aw fu l r et al ia tio n by presenting di rect e vidence of such retaliation or by establishin g a pri m a fa ci e c as e under the M

cD onne ll D ouglas fram ew ork.” A bbot t v . Cr ow n M oto r C o. , 348 F . 3d 537, 542 ( 6thCi r. 200 3) ( re fe rr ing to McD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. Gree n , 411 U . S. 792 , 93 S . Ct . 181 7, 36 L . E d. 2d 6 68 ( 1973 )) . Abse nt d ir ec t e vid en ce of r e t a l i a t i o n , a s i s th e c a s e h e r e , r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms ar e s ub j e c tt o th e s a me McDo nn el l Do ug la s b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rkas d is cri m in at io n c la im s. Sin gfi el d v . A kr on M

etro. H ous. A uth . , 38 9 F .3d55 5, 5 63 -6 4 (6 th Cir . 20 04 ). To es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r et al ia tio n, Jam es ha d to sho w( 1) she e nga ge d in ac tiv ity pr ote ct ed

by T itl e V II , ( 2) the G ove rn m en t kn ewshe e nga ge d inthi s ac tiv ity , ( 3) the G ove rn m en t su bj ec te d he r to an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct ion , and (4 ) a ca usa l c onne ct ione xis ts b etw ee n th e pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty and the a dve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on . Sin gfi el d , 389 F . 3d at 56 3.

“ If and whe n apla int if

f ha s e sta bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se , the bur de n of productio n of evidence shifts to the em ploy er to ‘ articulate som e legitim ate, nond iscrim inatory

rea son’ f or its actions.” Id . ( quot ing M cD onne ll D ouglas , 411 U. S. at 802). T he plaintiff m ust then d em onstrate “ that the proffere d reason wa s not th e true r eason for the em ploym ent decision.” Id . ( quot ing Te xa s D ep t. of9

Co m m uni tyA

ffa irs v . B urdi ne , 450 U . S. 248 , 256 , 101 S . Ct . 108 9, 67 L . E d. 2d 2 07 (1981)). T he em

ploy er m ay

also prove an affir

m ative defense to reta liatory harassm ent by

a supervisor by

dem onstrating : “ (a) that the em ploy er e xercised re as ona ble c ar e to p re ve nt and c or re ct pr om ptl y any . . . hara ssi ng b eh av ior , and (b ) that the pla int if

f em plo y ee unr ea sona

bly f ai le d to take a dvanta ge of any preventative or corre ctive oppo rtunities prov ided by the em ploy er to avoid harm otherwise. ” B url ing ton I ndus tri es , I

nc . v . E lle rth , 524 U . S. 742 , 118 S . Ct . 225 7, 2270 , 141 L. Ed. 2d 63 3 (1998). A. Adverse Em

ploym ent Ac tions In B url ing ton No rth er

n , the S uprem e Court considered j ust ho w har m ful an action m ust be to cons titute retaliation. 126 S.C t. at 2415 . The C ourt explained that f or c ondu ct to be co m e ac tio nable r et al ia tio n “ [a ] pla int if f m ust sho wthat a reasonable em

ploy ee w ouldhave found the challenged action m aterially adverse, which in this context m eans it we ll m ight h ave dissuaded a reasonable worker from m aking or sup porting a char ge of discrim ination .” Id . a t 24 15 ( ci ta tio ns and quot ation m arks om itted). A t tri al , Jam es pr oduc ed

e vid en ce of

vari ous harm s th e G ove rn m en t allegedly caused her ( i.e. , de nia l of la te ra l transf

er s, ba d e m

plo ym en t e va luatio ns, an d th e im

posi tio n of

c at al ogui ng quot as . ). P ri or to B url ing ton No rth ern , tho se10

ha rm s wer e n ot ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on s. Se e She rm an v . Ch ry sle r C orp. , 47 F. App’ x 71 6, 721 -2 2 ( 6thCi r. 200 2) ( unpu bli she d) (d en ia l of

la te ra l transf

er is not ana dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ionund er

the A D E A ); Prim es v . R en o , 190 F . 3d 7 65, 767 (6 th C ir . 199 9) ( anunf av or ab le e va luatio n w ith out an a cc om

pany ing a dve rs e em ploym ent action, such as a low er w age, is not action able as a T itle VI I re ta liatio n c la im); A gne w v . B A SF Co rp. , 286 F . 3d 3 07, 10 ( 6thCi r. 200 2) (r equir ing an e m

plo y ee to co m

ply w ithar ea sona

ble pe rf orm an ce plan or

be subj ec t t o di sc ipl ine doe s no t c onst itu te an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct ionund er

the AD EA ). A fter B url ing ton No rth ern , e xc lud ing an e m plo y ee f ro m aw ee kly training lun ch that contribut es significantlyto the em ploy ee’ s professional ad va nc em en t i s m at eri al ly adv ers e co nd uc t. Id . a t 24 15- 16. Mark ed ly w or se pe rf orm an ce e va luatio ns tha t si gni fi cantl y im pa ct an e m plo y ee ’ s w ag es or pr of es si on al ad va nc em en t ar e al so m at eri al ly adv ers e. Se e Hal fa cr e v. Home De pot, U. S.A ., Inc. , 2007 W L 1028860 , *9 (6th Cir. 2007 ). Many of the a dve rs e ac tio ns J am es c om pla ins about

pr ec ed ed he r 2002 T itl e V II c harg es . N ev er

the le ss, it is tr ue that the G ove rn m en t de nie d Jam es ’ s r eque st for a lateral transfer, gave her bad em ploym ent evaluations , and im posed cata log uin g qu ota s a ft er

she f ile d he r ch ar ge s w iththe E E O C. H ow ev er , it is al so true that none of these thing s Jam es com plained abou t signi ficantly aff ected herAlthough the se eve nts occurr ed af ter James left the wor

kplace , post-employ

ment 1 injuries can be actionable under Title VI I . See R obinson v. Shell Oil Co. , 519 U.S. 337, 339, 346, 117 S.Ct . 843, 136 L .Ed.2d 808 (1997) ( holding that the te rm “e mploy ees,” as used in Title VI I ’s anti -r e ta liatio n p ro vis ion , in c lud e s f or me r e mpl oye e s b ri ng ingsu it f or re ta liator y , p os temploy ment actions, such a s a neg ative re fer ence to a potential employ er) . 11 p r o f e s s i o n a l a d v a n c e me n t . J a me s c o n t i n u e dt o w o rkan ds h e r e c e i v e dth e s a me pay despite her T itle VI I claim s. S he also contin ued to receive the bad ev al ua tio ns, but

tho se w er e not

m ar ke dly w or se than e ar lie r one s and the evaluations did no t affe ct her e arnings. H er e m ploym ent conditi ons were es se nti al ly

unc hange d a ft er

she f ile d w iththe E E O C. Jam es ’ s a lle ga tio ns are not actionable because they

failed to significantly

im pact her profe ssion al advanc em en t and w oul d no t have dis sua de d ar ea sona ble pe rs on f

ro m f ili ng a T itl e V I I c l a i m. Jam es a lso c ont en de d th at the G ove rn m en t’ s op posi tio n to he r dis ab ili ty ap pli catio n, the “ canc el la tio n” of he r fam ily ’ s he al th i nsur an ce , it s

“ m isr ep re se ntatio n” about pay ing he r the sam e sa lary to w ork ale sse r posi tio n, an d th e re duc ed

se rv ic e pe nsi on i t pa id h er are a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion s. 1 Jam es ’ s c ont en tio ns are inc or re ct . Jam es wa s not entit led to disabi lity benefits because she w as able to perform w ork a s a L ibr ar ian I . T he pos iti on w as c om para ble to he r cata log uin g po sit ion an d th e G ove rn m en t of

fe re d he r the L ibr ar ian I j ob a s ar ea sona ble12

ac co m m oda tio n. S inc e Jam es w as not e nti tle d to dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts, the Governm ent could no t supp ort her disabilityapplication. While Jam es claim ed that the G ove rn m en t m isr ep re se nte d th e fa ct that the L ibr ar ian I pos iti on p ai d le ss than her curre nt salary , the r ecord shows that Jam es inform ed the Benefits Boar d that he r sa lary

w oul d be sli ght ly

low er if she a cc ep te d th e le sse r posi tio n. T he Bo ard ’s dec is io n t o d en y James a d is ab il it y

pe ns io n d es pi te th e d is crep an cy sh ows th atth e Gov ern m en t’s “ m is rep res en ta ti on ” d idno t af fect th e Bo ard ’s dec is io n. Thus, Jam es suffer ed no adverse em ploym ent action via the alleged m isr ep re se ntatio n or

c an ce llatio n. Jam es a lso f

ai le d to sho wthat he r fam ily ’ s in sur an ce w as c an ce lle d. T he te sti m ony sho w ed that an in sur an ce c om

pany ( not the G ove rn m en t) se nt J am es a le tte r canc el lin g he r fam ily ’ s he al th i nsur an ce . H ow ev er , the le tte r w as am ist ak e an d t he in su ran ce was ne ve r can cel le d. The c losest Jam es cam e to establishin g an adverse em ploym ent action was w he n sh e al le ge d th at

the G ove rn m en t r ed

uc ed he r se rv ic e pe nsi on. P ri or to Jam es’ retire m ent, John Kennedy , the G overnm ent’ s Assistant Direc tor of H um an Re sour ce s, pr ovi de d Jam es ac hart sho w ing that he r pe nsi on w oul d be $1, 803. 66 per m onth if she ended her ser vice on March 1, 2003 , at age 55 and a half. Jam es en de d h er s erv ic e atth atti m e, bu t h er m on th ly pen si on tu rn edou t t o b e $ 1,5 06 .06 .13

A lth oughJam es c ont en de d th at the sm al le r pe nsi on w as e vid en ce of r et al ia tio n, the c hart pla inl y e xpl ai ne d th at

any pe rs on who r et ir ed

be fo re r ea ch ing a ge 60 would have his or her pension reduced by 4% per y ear. T hus, Jam es’ pension wa s re duc ed to $1, 506. 06 p er

m onth be ca

use she r et ir ed

e ar ly . I t w as not

r ed uc ed due to retaliation. E ven if the chart w as som ehow unclear or wr ongl y explained, Jam es never contended that the Governm ent used the chart to fraudulently induce her re tir em en t and s he ne ve r ar gue d th at she de tr im en ta lly

r el ie d onthe c hart . B. S ev ere or P

er va siv e Re tal

iat ory Ha ras sm en t by

a Sup er vi

sor Alter natively , Jam es argues that the j ury could have returned a verdict in her favor ba se d onse ve re or

pe rv as ive r et al ia tor

y c ondu ct . E vid en ce of

se ve re or pervasive superviso r hara ssm ent following a discrim ination com plaint can co ns ti tu te ret al ia ti on forpu rp os es of Ti tl e VII. See A kers v. Alv ey , 338 F . 3d 4 91, 498 (6 th C ir . 200 3) ( ci ta tio n and quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). T he hara ssm en t m ust b e “su ff i ci en t l y s ev er e o r p er v as i v e t o al t erth e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e v i ct i m ’s em ploym ent and create an abusive working environ m ent.” Id . ( ci tin g Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 51 0 U.S. 1 7, 2 1, 1 14 S.Ct . 36 7, 1 26 L.Ed.2d 29 5 (1 99 3) ).

“ [T ] his te st h as both an ob j ec tiv e an d asub

j ec tiv e co m

pone nt: the c ondu ct

m ust be se ve re or pe rv as ive e noug h to c re at e ane nvi ro nm en t tha t a r ea sona ble pe rs on would find hos tile or abusive, and the victim m ust su bje ctively

regar d that14

environm ent as hostil e or abusive.” Id . ( citation om itted). T he onl y e vid en ce Jam es of

fe rs to show“ se ve re or

pe rv as ive hara ssm en t” is the G ove rn m en t’ s op posi tio n to he r dis ab ili ty be ne fi ts a

ppl ic at ionand

“ canc el la tio n” of

he r he al th i nsur an ce . B ec au se the G ove rn m en t w as not re spon sib le f

or the m ist ak enc an ce llatio n le tte r Jam es r ec ei ve d, the onl y a ct ion Jam es c anc om

pla in a bout is the G ove rn m en t’ s op posi tio n to he r dis ab ili ty be ne fi ts a ppl ic at ion . A s e xpl ai ne d e ar lie r, Jam es w as not e nti tle d to be ne fi ts. T he Gov ern m en t’s fa il ur e to supp or t an un de se rv in g app li cat io n i s n ot ha ras sm en t. V. C ONC LUS ION Upon reconsideration in lig ht of B url ing ton No rth ern , w e fi nd J am es did not p re s en tev i d en ce s u ff

i ci en tfo r aju ry t o fi n di n fa v o r o f h erre t al i at i o n cl ai m . We the re fo re RE V E RS E the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to de ny the G ove rn m en t’ s R

ule 50 m oti on and r em an d f

or pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.