2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-16-2005 

# L a wre nce v . F C K e rb eck & S ons P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1242

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L a wr e nc e v . F C Ke r be ck & S on s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1000. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1000NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 1242

________________ 

### LI ON ELS. LA WRENC E, Appe l l ant v. F. C. KE RB EC K &SO NS

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 03- cv- 00113) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le R o b ert B . K u g ler

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 15, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 16, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , L i onel S. L aw r ence , appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng a p p e lle e ’s m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. F o r t h e re a s o n s s e t f o rt h b e lo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m .2

L a w re n c e w a s h ire d a s a n a u to d e taile r b yF .C . K e rb e c k & S o n s (“ K e rb e c k ” ) in J ul y2001. O n A ugus t29, 2001, he qui tthi s j ob bas ed on an a r gum enthe had w i t h a m anage rr egar di ng hi s pay chec k, dur i ng w hi ch the managerm ade a der ogat oryr aci al c o m m e n t. In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 3 , L a w re n c e b ro u g h t th is a c tio n u n d e r T itl e V II o f th e C iv il R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e, al l egi ng thathe w as har as s ed bas ed on hi s r ace and thathe w as for ced t o qui thi s j ob beca us e managementw as notgoi ng t o r ect i fythe har as s m ent . K erbeck f

i l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch w as gr ant ed. W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . See C o o lspring S ton e S u p p ly , Inc . v . A m . S tat es L ife In s. C o . , 1 0 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). A g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ill b e a f f irm e d if o u r re v iew re v e a ls th a t “th e re is no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . “W e r evi ew the fa ct s i n t he l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he part yagai ns tw hom s um m aryj udgm entw as ent er ed. ” C ool s pr i ng, 1 0 F .3 d a t 1 4 6 . T o estab li sh a c lai m u n d er T it le V II ba sed o n an inti m idating o r of fe n sive w o rk envi r onm ent , a pl ai nt i ff musts how : “( 1) thathe ors he s uffe r ed i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e of r ace ; ( 2) t he di s cr i m i nat i on w as pervas i ve and r egul ar ; ( 3) the di s cr i m i nat i on d e trim e n tallya f

f e c ted th e p lain tiff; (4 ) th e d isc rim in a tio n w o u ld d e trim e n tallya f f e c t a r eas onabl e per s on of the s ame r ace i n t hatpos i t i on; and ( 5) the exi s t ence of r es pondeat su p erior li ab il ity . ” S ee A m an v . C o rtF u rnitu re R en tal C o rp., 8 5 F . 3 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 8 1 (3d C ir .3

1 9 9 6 ). In e m p lo y in g th is a n a ly sis a c o u rt m u st e v a lu a te th e f re q u e n c yo f

th e c o n d u c t, i ts se v e rity , w h e th e r it is p h y sic a llyth re a ten in g o r h u m ili a tin g , an d w h e th e r it u n re a so n a b ly i nt er fer es w i t h an empl oy ee’ s w or k per form ance . See H arr i s v. For kl i ftSy s . , I nc. , 510 U . S. 17, 23 ( 1993) . T i t l e V I I i s notvi ol at ed by“[m]e r e utt er ance of an . . . epi t hetw hi ch e n g e n d e rs o f

f e n s iv e f e e lin g s in a n e m p lo y e e ” o r b ym e re “ d is c o u rt e s yo r r u d e n e s s ,” unl es s s o s ever e orpervas i ve as t o cons t i tut e an obj ect i ve cha nge i n t he condi t i ons of empl oym ent . See Far agherv. C i t yof B oca Rat on, 524 U . S. 775, 787 ( 1998) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). L aw r ence confr ont ed B r i an M art i n, a manageratK erbeck, beca us e Law r ence bel i eved hi s pay chec k di d notacc ur at el yr efl ecthi s w or k. M art i n, w ho w as i n char ge of cal cul at i ng t he payr ol l i n t he abs ence of the r egul arm anage r , acknow l edged thathe had m ade a n err ori n hi s cal cul at i ons . A n ar gum entens ued, dur i ng w hi ch M art i n m ade a ra c ial re m a rk . L a w re n c e a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e d id n o t h a v e re g u lar c o n tac t w ith M a rtin an d that the a lt erc ati o n o v er the p ay roll w as a n isolated incid en t. A lth o u g h M arti n ’s al l eged c om m entw as di s r es pect ful and i nexcus abl e, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hat L a w re n c e c a n n o t s h o w a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t b a s e d o n th is o n e is o la te d in c id e n t. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ygr ant ed K erbeck’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent r egar di ng L aw r ence ’ s cl ai m of cons t ruct i ve di s char ge. A s di s cus s ed above , the di s cr i m i nat i on al l eged i n t hi s m at t erw as l i m i t ed t o an i s ol at ed i nci dentthatcoul d not es t abl i s h w or ki ng condi t i ons s o i nt ol er abl e thata r eas onabl e per s on s ubj ectt o t hem w o u ld re s ig n . S e e G o s s v . E x x o n O f f ic e S y s . C o ., 7 4 7 F .2 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ).Fur t herm or e, L aw r ence fai l ed t o poi ntt o anyevi dence thatK erbeck know i ngl yperm i t t ed

th e c o n d u c t a t is s u e . Id . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.