2004 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
11-8-2004 

# P a ge v . P itt sburgh
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4153

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" P a g e v . P itts bur gh " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 139. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/139NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT


### No. 03-4153
CHARLOTTE

PAGE, Appellant

v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH; KATHLEEN KRAUS, individually

and as Act

ing Director of Public Safe

ty Departm ent

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

D.C. CivilNo. 02-cv-01945 Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Robert J . Cindri ch

Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 30, 2004

Bef or e: ROTH, BARRY, and CH ER TO FF , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: November 8, 2004)

OPI NION

BA RR Y, Circuit

Judge Charlotte Page appeals the Dist rict Court’s September 18, 2003 or der granting the1 As the D istrict Court noted, def endan t Kathleen Kraus was en titled to summa ry

judgment on a nar

rower and indepe ndent basi s. We have held t hat only employe rs, and not ind ivid ual e mp loyee s, m ay be held liabl e un der Title VI I. Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 100 F.3d 1061, 1077-78 (3d Cir . 1996) ( en banc). Page has not chall enged thi s aspect

of the Dist

rict Court’s de cisi on. 2 Cityof Pitt sburgh’s motion for s ummary judgment on Page’s hostile work environment claim . W e ha ve ju risdi ction und er 2 8 U .S.C . § 12 91. Summary judgment

is appr opriate when a party“fail s to make a showing s uffici ent to est ablis h the exi stence of an element e ssenti al to t hat part y' s case, and on which that partywill bear the bur den of proof at tri al. ” Celo tex C orp. v . Catre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)
. For purposes of this appeal, we must view the rec ord in the ligh t mos t favo rable to Page, the non-moving party , drawing from the evidence any r easonable infere nces wh ich s upp ort h er cla im. Debiec v. Cabot Corp. , 352 F.3 d 11 7, 12 8 n.3 (3d Cir . 200 3). Ou r rev iew is ple nar y. Knabe v. Boury Corp. , 114 F.3 d 40 7, 41 0 n.4 (3d Cir . 199 7). I. The parties a re w ell acq uainte d w ith the f actua l and p roced ural ba ckgr oun d of this case, and theref

ore we will l imit

our disc ussion of t

he record to those fac ts bearing directly on our d ispositio n of this app eal. 1 Page, an Afri can-American woman, was hired by the City ’s Bureau of Pol ice i n 1993. Page cl aims that , duri ng a three -month peri od beginning i n October 1995, s he was subjected to a hostile work environment in vi olati on of the rights aff orded h er by Title VII. Spec ifically, Page a lleges that her fellow officers repeat edlytargeted her for har assment on t he basis of her race and that this acti vity

was3

eithe r ignor ed or condoned byher supervisors . As a resul t of the alle ged harass ment, she stop ped com ing to w ork on D ece mb er 3 1, 19 95. The Distri ct Court c oncluded that the re was insuf fici ent evi dence, as a matter of law, t o establ ish seve re and perva sive di scri minati on or object ively detri mental worki ng

con ditio ns, a nd t hat th ere w as n o ba sis fo r resp ond eat s upe rior lia bility. W e ag ree. Acco rd in gl y , we wil l a ffi rm. II. The elem ents o f a ho stile wo rk en viron men t claim b roug ht un der T itle VII a re w ell establ ished. A plainti ff seeking to hold her empl oyer liabl e must prove, as rel evant her e: (1) that she s uffered i ntenti onal dis crimination bec ause of her r ace; ( 2) that the discrim ination wa s perv asive a nd re gular; (3 ) that the discrim ination detrim entally affected t

he plai ntiff ; (4) that t

he discrimination would have det rimenta lly

affected a reasonabl e person of t

he same race as the plainti ff, i n like pos iti on; and (5) a basis for resp ond eat s upe rior lia bility. See Kunin v. Sear s Roebuck & Co. , 175 F.3d 289, 293 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing And rew s v. City of Ph iladelp hia , 895 F.2 d 14 69, 1 482 (3d Cir . 199 0)). The Supreme Court has made cl ear that “‘s imple t easing, ’ offhand comments, and isola ted in cide nts (u nles s ex trem ely ser iou s)” a re n ot ac tion able und er T itle V II. Faragher v. Ci ty of Boca Raton , 524 U.S . 775 , 788 (19 98) (inte rna l citati on o mitte d). Inste ad, the harass ing behavi or must be “s uffici ently severe or

pervasi ve to al ter t

he conditi ons of [plai ntiff ’s] empl oyment. ” Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders , 124 S . Ct.2 Page att empts to s tretch the re levant period byclai ming that the ini tiat

ion of disci plinar

y pr oceedings a gainst

her in December 1995, in connection with t he inci dent at Woodson’s Bar and Gril l, was an exe rcis e in bad fai th dis cipli ne. There i s no evidence that Sergeant Lis iecki ’s non-di scri minatory reason for

fili ng the Disci plinar

y Acti on Report was pretextual . Moreover, we decline Page’ s invi tati on to consi der what Lisi ecki did as part of a “comple x tapest ry of discrimination,” see Aman v. Cort Furni ture Rent al Corp. , 85 F.3d 1074, 1083-84 (3d Cir . 1996), parti cularl y gi ven that Lisiec ki was in no way connect ed to anyof the al legedl y di scri minatory October inc idents . For si milar reasons, we agree with the District Court that no reasonable jurycould concl ude that Sergeant Winkl er’s de cisi on to cri tici ze Page’s r eport wri ting at rollcallon October 2, 1995 w as motivated by anykind of impermissible animus. 4 2342, 2347 (2004) (quoti ng Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U .S. 57, 67 (198 6)). We agree with the Distri ct Court t hat Page has not

produced evi dence of pervas ive and regu lar harassme nt premised on her rac e. Page’s allega tions of discrim ination are limi ted to a

seri es of is olate d incide nts, all oc curri ng in the month of October 1995, 2 intersp ersed with a me lange of co mp laints ha ving little or no thing to do w ith race . This evid enc e fa lls fa r sho rt of esta blish ing a reg ular patte rn o f dis crim inati on. Cf. Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental

Corp. , 85 F.3d 1 074, 108 2 (3d C ir. 1996) (finding that summ ary judgment was inappropri ate i n a hosti le work envir onment case where pl ainti ffs all eged that they were con sistently harassed by their co-work ers over a six-year period ). In additi on, none of the discriminat ory incide nts that Page ci tes were s uffici ently severe, giv en th e lac k of reg ular ity, to be actio nab le un der Title VI I. See Ha rris v . Fo rklift S ys., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (di sti nguishi ng “phys ical ly threatening or humil iati ng” statem ents fr om “me re off ensiv e uttera nce[ s]”). Fo r the sa me re ason s, Pag e has failed to demonstrate that

the al leged di scri minati on would have detrimental ly affected a3 It fol lows that Page’s al ternat

ive cl aim that

she was constr

uctive ly dischar ged nec essa rily fails
. See Goss v. Exxon Off ice Sys. Co. , 747 F.2d 885, 888 (3d Cir. 1984) (requi ring a pl ainti ff clai ming constr uctive discharge to demonstr ate the existence of discrim inatory w orkin g con ditions “so in tolerab le that a re ason able p erson subje ct to them w ould resign” ). reasonabl e person i n her posi tion. 3 Fina lly, in light of th e fore goin g, Pag e has failed to alleg e a c ogn izab le ba sis fo r imp utin g liab ility to th e C ity. We will affi rm the Dist rict Court’s order of Septe mber 18, 2003.