NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0873n.06 No. 11-5228 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT P ATTY CLEVEL AND, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. SOUTH ERN DISP OSAL WAS TE CONNECTIONS, Defendan t-Appellee. / ON AP P EAL FR OM THE UNITE D STATE S DIST RICT COURT F OR THE WEST ERN DISTRICT OF TENNESS EE

BEFORE: DAUG HTREY and CLAY, Circ uit Jud ges; CLELAND, Distr ict Judge. * CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Patty Cleveland appea ls the district court’s order g ranting

sum m ar y judgme nt in favor of her former employ er, Def endant Southern Disposal Waste Connections. Plaintiff a lleg es that afte r she was denied va rious positions wit hin the company and filed a number of complaints, Def endant eng ag ed in r acia l disc rimination ag ainst her ba sed on the failure to promote, took actions of reta liation, cre ated a hostile w ork environment, and permitted a constructive discharg e in violation of Title VI I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq . For

the re asons set for

th below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.

The Honor able Rober

t H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation.No. 11-5228 BACK GR OUND Pl a in ti f f is a n A f r ic a n Americ an woman former ly employ ed by Def endant, Souther

n D is p o s a l Waste Connections (Southern Disposal), a waste collection business. I n 2001, Plaintiff worke d as

a wa ste-haulingdriver a

nd then in 2006 transitioned to a customer service repr esentative until her resig nation o n J an u ary 14, 2008. During the rele vant time period, Tim Fa dul (F adul) and Randy Canno n (Cannon) serve d, respe ctively , in the capa city of district manag er and supervisor for the Def endant. A. P laintif

f’s S ex Discr im ination and Retaliation Allegations On September 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employ ment Opportunity C o m m i s s i on (EEOC) wher ein she alleg ed sex discrimination and reta liation. Acc ording to t h e complaint, Plaintiff’s sex discrimination char g e stemmed from an incident in which the operations manag er and Fa dul require d her to drive a g arba g e truck, but they allowed a male employ ee to decline the assig nment. Plaintiff alleg ed in h er co m plaint that if she ref used to drive the g arba g e truck, then Fa dul would consider her inaction as a ref usal to work, which could possibly lead to her termination. On J anuar

y 12, 2006, Plaintiff amende d her EEOC complaint to include a second char g e of

sex discrimination and reta liation. Plaintiff alleg ed in her amende d complaint that over a four- day period, Def

endant paid a black male more money to drive the g arbage t ru ck co m p ared to her. Plaintiff also stated that Def endant reta liated ag ainst her by assig ning her to drive the g arba g e truck and rec eive less pay afte r she previously filed a sexual hara ssment claim wh en t h e co m p any was known as Ecc o. Plaintiff did not seek relief for the alleg ed Title VI I violations raised in both her

2No. 11-5228

2005 and 2006 complaints, but she argues that the filing of those char g es constituted “the protec ted activity which Def

endant later reta liated ag ainst her in violation of Title VI I .” On November 30, 2006, the EEOC issued a “dismissal and notice of rig hts” letter to Plaintiff, which stated that it was closing Plaintiff’s file af

ter findingno violation of Title VI I

. B. P laintif

f’s Pr om otion Requests During her employ

ment at Southern Disposal, Plaintiff applied for, but was denied, a promotion to the position of dispatcher on two separ ate occ as i o n s. Plaintiff first applied for the dispatch position in 2006. Def endant stated that it denied Plaintiff’s promotion beca use Fa dul transfe rre d L ashaundr a J ackson, an Afric a n Americ an woman, from her position as customer service repr esentative to the position of interim dispatcher

. Fa dul explained in his decla ration that he hired J ackson beca

use she had experience with dispatch duties while Plaintiff did not have the same level of dispatch experience or a perf ormanc e rec ord compar able to J ackson’ s. Plaintiff applied ag ain for the dispatch position in 2007. Def endant selec ted Fe licia Wil liams , al s o an African Americ an woman, for the position. Fa dul stated that he awa rded Wil liams the dispatcher position beca use of her pr ior work performa

nce r ecor d and bec ause she had a f lexi ble sche dule that was ne cessa ry for the position. I n April 2007, Plaintiff applied for a s h o p co ordinator position. Def endant hired Robert L ingle , a white male, for the position beca use L ingle had ten y ear s of experience direc tly related to the position and Plainti ff ha d no such compa rable experience

. Approxim ately three months later in J uly 2007, Plaintiff applied for the position of customer service manag er. Def

endant declined to hire Plaintiff afte r she admi t ted during an informal

3No. 11-5228

interview that “she had n o ex perie nce supervising a g roup of employ ees, direc ting their work, g uiding their perf

ormanc e, or disciplining employ ees.” I nstead, Def endant selec ted Marc ie Wright,

a white fema le, for the position. Wright possessed a number of y ear s of mana g ement experienc e. C. P laintif

f’s S usp ension f

rom South ern Disposal and Sub sequent Resignation On October 3, 2007, while s er v i n g as a customer service repre sentative, P laintiff receive d a cash pay

ment of $110 from a customer. Acc ording to company protocol, P laintiff was require d to place the money in a seale d envelope and deposit it into a locked drop box

. On the following day , the customer service manag er went to retrie ve the prior day s pay ments from the lock box and noticed that the seale d envelope containing Plaintiff’s pay men t wa s m issing. Def endant conducte d an 1 investigation, which included interviewing witnesses and revie wing pay ment rec eipts, and discovere d that Plaintiff somehow mishandled the customer’ s pay ment. When Plaintiff was unable to provide an explanation for the missing pay ment, Def endant issued Plaintiff an unpaid, two-we ek suspension. On October 4, 2007, Pla i n t i ff contac ted S outhern Disposal’s human resource s depar tment complaining of discrimination and reta liation. Four day s later, on October 8, Plaintiff sent a follow up email to human resour ces claiming that she was discriminated and reta liated ag ainst by Def endant afte r the company (1) remove d Plaintiff f rom her curr ent position without explanation; (2) ref used to promote her to the position of customer service manag er; (3) ref used to issue a rejection letter afte r she ref

used t o sign a document; and (4) falsely acc used her of st ealingmoney . Plaintiff also

Def endant state d that eig hty

dollars was missing from the se aled e nvelope. 1 4No. 11-5228

alleg ed that Def

endant reta liated ag ainst her afte r she sent an email to her supervisor, Cannon, about misleading information with respe ct to the customer pa y ment. On November 12, 2007, Plaintiff met with Fa dul. Following their m eeting, Fa d u l offe red Plaintiff a voluntary

sever ance packa g e. Plaintiff dec lined Fa dul’s offe r and c ontinued to work in her same position with no loss of pay , benef its, or responsibilities. On November 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed another char g e with the EEOC and alleg ed rac e and ag e discrimination and reta liation. Plaintiff stated in her complaint that she applied for but was denied the dispatcher and shop coordinator positions and alleg ed that Def endant selec ted less qualified and young er candidates for the position. I n addition, Plaintiff claimed that she s u ff er ed reta liation for filing her 2005 EEOC complaint, mishandling the c ustomer pay ment, and also be ing of

fer ed a se vera

nce pa ckag e. D. P laintif

f’s Allegations of

a Hostile Work Envi ronm ent Plaintiff claims that manag ement and other employ ees made disparag ing rema rks about her. Plaintiff’s depositio n t est imony states that she experience d a hostile work environment during various points of her employ ment at Southern Disposal as co-w orker s commented on her persona lity and work ethic. Plaintiff rec alled one co-w orker calling her names, including “dummy ” and “wa g on butt” while another co-w orker called Plaintiff “nut b rains.” Plaintiff stated that she repor ted the comments to Cannon, her supervisor, but the is s u e w a s n e v e r r esolved and the hara ssment continued. I n fac t, Plainti ff r eca lls Cannon calling he r a “ troublemake r.” Plaintiff a lso r emember ed the same

co-w orker who ref

err ed to her as “wa g on butt” also told Plaintiff that “nobody likes y ou.” The same

co-w orker also told Plaintiff that people “just don’t trust y ou . . . that’s why y ou haven’ t g otten any wher e in this company .”

5No. 11-5228

On J anuar

y 11, 2008, Wright, a company supervisor, issued Plaintiff a written war ning f or

an unexcused absenc e. That same day , Plaintiff met with Wright to discuss the unexcused absenc e, but she felt that Wright was hostile towards her. Plaintiff claimed that afte r her meeting with Wright, she experienc ed shortness of breath and che st pains and she a lso beg an cr y ing. Plaintiff resig ned from her position at Southern Disposal on J anuar y 14, 2008, and has since

rec eived a

n offe r of e mploy

ment at another

employ er. On Fe bruar

y 13, 2009, Plaintiff proce eding pro se , filed h er compl aint in fede ral court alleg ing claims of racial dis crimination and re taliation in violation of Titl e VI Iof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-5. After obtaining counsel, Plaintiff f iled an ame nded complaint

on J anuar

y 23, 2010, which i n cluded two additional claims—hostile work environment and constructive discharg e. I n the amende d complaint, Plaintiff stated that she suffe red reta liation and discrimination on the basis of race when she: (1) ap plied for but did not g et t hree promotions; (2) was removed from a sa l es posi tion; (3) was suspended in connec tion with a mi ssing pay ment; (4)

was offe red a voluntary sever ance packa g e; (5) was constructively discharg ed; (6) and was subjected to a hostile work environment. Plaintiff soug ht decla ratory and injunctive relief and compensation for all damag es available. After the close of di scover y , Def endant mov ed fo r summary judgme nt

on September 13, 2010. On J anuar y 21, 2011, the district c ourt issued an order g ranting summary judgme nt to Def

endant and dismiss ed the case with prejudice

. Plaintiff timely filed her notice of appea l on Febr

uary 19, 2011.

6No. 11-5228 DISCUSSIO N I. Stand ard of Review We revie w a district court’s g rant of summary judge men t de novo . Mutchler v. Dunlap Mem ’l Hosp. , 485 F.3d 854, 857 (6th Cir. 2007). Summary judgme nt is appropr iate “if the movant shows that there is no g enuine dispute as to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt

as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

. “In deter m i n i n g whether summary judgme nt is appropr iate, all infere nces are to be made in fa v o r o f t h e non-moving party , and all evidenc e construed in the light m ost favor able to that party .” Disc. T obacco City &Lottery, Inc., v . United States , 674 F.3d 509, 521 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). II. F ailure to P rom ote Plaintiff raises a Title VI I claim of rac e discrimination on the basis of Def endant’ s failure to promote her to the positions of dispatche r and c ustomer service manag er. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a) (1). “To e stablish a prima fac ie claim of rac ial discrimination ba sed on a failure to pr omote[,]

.

. . a plaintiff g ener ally must demonstrate that: (1) he is a member of a protec ted class; (2) he applied and was qualified for a promotion; (3) he was considere d for and denied the promotion; and (4) other employ ees of simil ar qualifications who wer e not members of the protec t ed class rec eived promotions.” Dews v. A.B. D ick Co. , 231 F.3d 1016, 1020–21 ( 6th Cir. 2000). Since Plaintiff offe rs only circ umstantial evide n ce i n support of her claim of rac ial discrimination based on a failure to promote, we apply the burden- shifting analy sis set fo rt h in

7No. 11-5228

McDonnell Douglass Corp. v. Gree n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and subsequently modified in Texas Dep’ t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U. S

. 2 4 8 (1 981). Under this framework, if the plaintiff establ i s h es a prima fac ie case , then the burden of production shifts to the employ er to “ar ticulate

some leg itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son fo r i t s ac t ions. I f the employ er car ries this burden, the plaintiff must then prove by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that t h e rea sons offe red by the employ er wer e a prete x t for discrimination.” Arendale v. City of Mem phis , 519 F.3d 587, 603 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Pretext may be shown if “the proff ere d rea son (1) has no basis in fac t, (2) did not actua lly motivate the defe ndant’s challeng ed conduct, or (3) was insufficient to war rant the challeng ed conduct.” Dews , 231 F.3d at 1021. The plainti ff c arr ies the burde n of per suasion during eac h stag e of the analy sis. Arendale , 519 F.3d at 603. I n this case , Plaintiff cannot establish a prima fac ie case of rac ial discrimination based on a failure to promote. There is no dispute by the parties that Plaintiff satisfied the first and third prong s of the analy sis. Plaintiff is a member of a protec ted g roup (an Afric an Americ an woman), and she applied for the positions of dispatcher and customer service manag er but was denied the promotions. Howeve r, Plaintiff fails to pr ovide any evidenc e that she was either qualified for either position or that other employ ees of simil ar qualifications who wer e not members of the protec ted class rec eived

a promotion to those positions. The decla rations of Fa dul and Cannon prove that Plaintiff was not 2 Plaintiff argues that the district cour t failed to consider

evidenc e conta ined in the J uly , 2 2010 depositions of Ashley Pruett, a for

mer c ustomer servic e mana g er, a nd Henr y Weaver , a mecha nic for D efe ndant. Howe ver, that evidence was not submitted to the district court befor e it issued its order g rantingsummary judgme nt to Defe ndant on J anuar y 21, 2011. Plaintiff filed a motion to s upplement the re cord on Ma y 13, 2011, which wa s well afte r the district cour t entere d summary judgme nt. Nonetheless, the de positions of Ashley Pruett and He nry

Weaver do not save Plaintiff’s c ase, a

nd the district court did not err in gr anting summary

judgme nt to 8No. 11-5228

qualified for the position beca use she lacke d the require d experience for the job and did not ha ve a perf ormanc e rec ord compar able to those s elec ted for the position. Plaintiff’s claim is further

weakened by the fac t that Def enda n t promoted members within a protec ted class to rec eive the promotions. An Afric an Americ an woman was promoted to the position of dispatcher and a white fema le was pr omoted to the customer se rvice manag er position. Even assuming that Plaintiff can establish a prima fac ie case of rac ial discrimination ba sed

on a failure to prom o t e, De fendant has articulated a leg itimate non-discriminatory rea son for the employ ment decision. For the dispatcher position, Fa dul stat ed i n h i s d eclaration that he denied Plaintiff’s promotion reque st beca use she did not possess the rele vant skill s et and experience

nece ssary for the position. Fa dul explained that the “position require d skill at scheduling personne l, trucks, and w ork volumes” a nd that the per son must also be “deta il-oriented” and have familiarity with the company ’s route manag er softwar e. Plaintiff did not have experience i n ei t h er of those

are as, and the person who w as ultimately selec ted had the ne cessa

ry dispatch experienc e. Plaintiff also ca

nnot prove that Defenda

nt’s proff ere d rea son for the employ ment decision

was prete x tual. Burdine , 450 U.S. at 252–53. Plaintiff claims that she was the only candidate that had to respond to a written set of questions. But that rea son alone is insufficient to show prete x t, and Def endant ref utes that argument by basing its employ ment decision on the fac t that Plaintiff was not qualified for the position. Plaintiff even conce des that she never had any manag ement experience , which was a prer equisite for the position. There fore Plaintiff’s proff ere d rea sons has no basis in fac t and did not motivate the employ ment action. See Dews , 231 F.3d at 1021. Be cause Plaintiff failed

Def endant. See B owling v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 233 F.App’ x 460, 466 (6th Cir. 2007).

9No. 11-5228

to establish that her qualifications wer e the same or superior to those selec ted and that the disparity in her qua lifications alone c ould warr ant a f inding of prete x t, she ca

nnot preva il on this claim. III. Ret aliation Clai m Plaintiff also argues that she established a prima fac ie case of reta liation afte r Def endant did not promote her to the positions of dispatcher and customer service manag er, despite alleg edly being quali fi ed fo r the position. In addition, Plaintiff contends that her two-we ek suspension was in reta liation for her complaint s to the company ’s Vice President about the mishandling of the customer pay ment and also for

her pr ior EEOC complaints. To establish a prima fac ie case of Title VI I reta liat i o n , a p l ai n t i ff must show that “(1) she eng ag ed in T i t l e VII -protected activity ; (2) [Defenda nt] knew that she eng ag ed in a protec ted activity ; (3) [ Def

endant] subsequently took an adverse employ ment action aga inst [P laintif f] ; and (4) the adver se action was causa lly related to the protec ted activity .” Ladd v. Grand Trunk W

. R.R., Inc. , 552 F.3d 495, 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Mick ey v. Z eidler T ool and Die Co. , 516 F.3d 516, 523 (6th Cir. 2008)). Once a plaintiff establishes “a prima facie case , the burden of production of evidenc e shifts to the employ er to ‘ar

ticulate some leg itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son’ for its actions.” Morris v. Oldham Cnty. Fiscal Ct ., 201 F.3d 784, 793 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting McD onnell Douglas , 411 U.S. at 802). The plaintiff bear s the burden of persua sion and must demonstrate that the “prof fer ed rea son was not the true rea son for the e mploy ment decision.” Id

. (quoting Burdine , 450 U.S. at 256). There is no dispute among the parties that Plaintiff satisfied t he first th re e elements of her prima fac ie reta liation cl ai m : (1) Plaintiff eng ag ed in a protec ted activity by filing three EEOC

10No. 11-5228

char g es—a charg e on September 21, 2005, an ame nded cha rg e on January

12, 2006, and a char g e

on November 14, 2007—as well as an internal EEO complaint ag ainst Def endant afte r she applied for, but was denied a promotion to the positions of dispatcher and customer service manag er alleg edly beca

use of her rac e (Afr ican Americ an); (2) Def endant knew that Plaintiff filed an EEOC complai nt a fter Def

endant’ s HR depar

tment acknow ledg ed rec eipt of the complaint; and (3) Plaintiff

s u ff ered an adver se employ

ment action afte r Def

endant denied her promotions. Thus, only t h e 3 fourth prong

—whether Plaintiff can prove that her adver se employ ment action was causa lly related to the protec ted ac tivity

—is at issue. “To establish the causa l connec tion that the fourth prong require s, the plaintiff must produce sufficie nt evidenc e from which one could draw an infere nce that the employ er would not have taken t h e adver se action ag ainst the plaintiff had the plaintiff not eng ag ed in activity that Ti t l e VII protec ts.” Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., Inc. , 348 F.3d 537, 543 (6th Cir. 2003). Retaliation may be proved throug h either direc t or circ umstantial evidenc e. DiCarlo v. Potter , 358 F.3d 408, 420 (6th Cir. 2004). A. Dispatcher and Custom er Ser vice P rom otions Plaintiff argues that the close temporal proxi mity betwee n the time she filed her EEOC and EEO compl ai n t s and her promotion denials constituted sufficie nt proof to support her reta liation

Def endant doe s not conce de in its brief that Plaintiff suffe red a n adver se employ

ment 3 action af ter de ny ing he r application for the dispatche r and c ustomer servic e mana g er positions. Howeve r, “[a] tang ible employ ment action constitutes a sig nificant c hang e in employ ment status, such as hiring , firing , failing to promote, rea ssignment with sig nificantly differ ent responsibilities, or a dec ision causinga sig nificant c hang e in bene fits.” Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth , 524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998). B ased on this def inition, Defenda

nt’s decision not to promote Plaintiff to those positi ons constituted an adve rse e mploy ment action. 11No. 11-5228

claim. Howeve r, temporal proxi mity alone may not support an infere nce of reta liation absent other compelling evidenc e. See Cooper v. City ofNorth Olmstead , 795 F.2d 1265, 1272 (6th Cir. 1986) (“The mere fac t that [P lai n t i ff ] wa s discharg ed four months afte r filing a discrimination claim is insufficient to support an infe renc e of r etaliation.”)

. Plaintiff also attempts to present dire ct evidenc e of D efe ndant’s reta liatory act by showing that her EEOC complaints wer e a “substantial or motivating fac tor” in Def endant’ s decision to deny her the promotions for the dispatcher and customer service manag er positions. Plainti ff’ s “direc t evidenc e” is e x presse d in he r deposition, in which she testified that she was not promoted to those respe ctive positions beca

use of her previous EEOC complaints ag ainst Def endant and also beca

use her supe rvisor, Cannon, did not have a g ood workingrelationship wit h her. “‘In disc ri m i nation case s, direc t evidenc e is that evidenc e which, if believed, require s the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating fac tor in the employ er’ s actions.’” Laderach v. U-Haul of Nw. Ohio , 207 F.3d 825, 829 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Jack lyn v. Schering-P lough Healthcare Prods. Sales Co r p . , 1 7 6 F.3d 921, 926 (6th Cir.1999) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Direc t evidenc e does not require the fac t finder to make “any infere nces or pre sumptions.” Id

. I n this case , Plaintiff’s deposition does not cons t i t u t e direc t evidenc e for purposes of her reta liation claim. The deposition transcr ipt does not indicate that her supervisors ref used to promote her on the basis of t he EEOC complaints nor does the transc ript identify any rac ial discriminatory

rema rks made by her supervisors. Rather, Plaintiff’s purported direc t evidenc e requi re s the fac t fi n d er to make a number of infere nces to rea ch the possible conclusion that Def endant reta lia t ed

12No. 11-5228

ag ainst her on the basis of filing the EEOC complaints. There fore , Plaintiff’s evidenc e of reta liation is indire ct beca

use it r equire s us to make “a series of infere nces arising from plaintiff' s evidenc e.” Abbott , 348 F.3d at 542. Even revie wing the indirect evidenc e, P l ai n t iff’s reta liation claim still fails beca use she cannot establish that either Cannon or Fa dul reta liated ag ainst her on the basis of the EEOC and EEO complaints. Wit h respe ct to the customer service position, Plaintiff stated in her depositi o n that Cannon called Plaintiff a “troublemaker” afte r she filed her initial char g e with the EEO in 2005. But when asked at her deposition whether she believed she did not rec eive the promotion beca use of the prior complaints, Plaintiff could not direc tly connec t her complaints to C annon’s a ctions. Rather, Plaintiff s t at ed t hat she just felt that “Randy [C annon] probably just didn’t want me working that close with him due to prior reasons t hat we had - - that he said, whateve r, t hat was, why he didn’t want me in his depar

tment.” And when asked whether she did not g et the customer service position beca use of he r ra ce, Plaintiff r esponded, “ Idon’t know.” Simi larly , in reg ard to the dispatcher position, Plaintiff does not provi d e ei ther direc t or indirect evidenc e to sug g est that she was denied the promotion beca use of her EEOC and EEO comp l ai n t s. Plaintiff claims that despite being qualified for the dispatcher position, the positions

wer e never filled on a perma nent basis while she maintained employ ment with Def

endant, and the company chose to hire only temporar y em p loy ees. Def

endant’ s decision to hire only a temporar y employ ee bear s no rele vance on Plaintiff’s reta liation claim. More importantly , the rec ord indicates that Plaintiff was n o t s el ected for the position beca use she simply was not qualified and not as a result of he r pendingEEOC complaints.

13No. 11-5228 B. Sus pension Plaintiff makes a simil ar argument with respe ct to her two-we ek suspension. She contends that her suspension for alleg edly mishandling a customer pay ment also constitutes reta liation a fter she filed a

n EEOC complaint ag ainst the company

. Plaintiff ag ain raises a temporal proxi mity claim based on the fac t that Def endant suspended Plaintiff shortly afte r she filed her E EOC complaint. For the rea sons alre ady discussed in our analy sis of Plaintiff’s job prospec ts, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima fac ie case of reta liation solely on the basis of tempora l prox imity

. She must offer some other indicia of reta liatory

conduct. See Parks v. City of Chattanooga , 74 F.App’ x . 432, 438 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Te mporal proxi mity

. . . does not support an infere nce of reta liatory discrimination, particula rly wh e r e . . . [a

n e mploy er’ s decision] is rea dily explainable on non-re taliat o ry gro u n ds that have not been shown to be prete x tual.”). Plaintiff offe rs no additional evidenc e to sug g est that Def endant reta liated ag ainst her beca use of a protec ted ac tivity

. I n addition, Def

endant articulated a leg itimate non-discriminatory rea son for administering Plaintiff’s suspension, and Plaintiff cannot overc ome the burden of showing that the explanation is prete x tual. Plaintiff r ece ived her two-we ek suspension after Def endant rea sonably conclude d that Plaintiff was responsible for the mishandling of the cash pay ment, as she was the last person to have the money in her possession. Plaintiff acknow ledg ed that she was only person who had the customer’ s full pay

ment. There fore , as the district court found, “De fenda nt clea rly had a leg itimate and sound fac tual basis for assig ning blame to Plaintiff since she admitted to possessing the full pay ment.” Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish that Def endant reta liated ag ainst her by administering a

14No. 11-5228

two-we ek suspension for losi ng a customer pay ment afte r she f

iled an interna l complaint with her employ er. The rec ord does not support Plaintiff’s alleg ations of re taliation. IV. Hostile Work Envi ronm ent Plaintiff also alleg es a claim of hostile work environment based upon reta liation. To preva il

on a Title VI I claim of reta liatory hostile work environment a plaintiff must show t h at (1 ) s h e eng ag ed in activity protec ted under Title VI I ; (2) the defe ndant was awa re that the plaintiff eng ag ed in the protec ted activity ; (3) the plaintiff s uffe red “sever e or perva sive reta liatory hara ssment by

a supervisor; and (4) there was a causa l connec tion betwee n the p ro t ec t ed activity and the

. . . hara ssment.” Morris , 201 F.3d a t 792. The issue of whether a ho s tile work environment exis ts depends on a number of fac tors, including “the fre q u en cy o f the discriminatory conduct; its sever ity ; whether it is phy sically threatening or humiliating, o r a me r e offe nsive utteranc e; and whether it unrea sonably interfe res with

an employ ee’ s work perf

ormanc e.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). We consider the totality of circ umstances to deter mine whether the alleg ed conduct is sufficie ntly sever e or perva sive. W

illiams v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 187 F.3d 553, 562 ( 6th Cir. 1999). The district court found that Plaintiff’s evidenc e did not establish a prima fac ie case of a reta liatory hostile work environment. Howeve r, Plaintiff argues t h at the district court ignor ed rele vant fa cts in the rec ord which established a hostile wor k environment. The se include: (1) that her supervisor, Fa dul, reta liated ag ainst h e r for her protec ted activity “by instructing other employ ees to ref rain from assisting her” ; (2) that Randy Cannon ref used to investiga

te Plaintiff’s complaint that other employ ees, mainly Sammie Kimbrell, made disparag ing rema rks; (3) that afte r Plaintiff filed

15No. 11-5228

her internal EEO complaint, Plaintiff was denied a number of promotions; (4) that Plaint iff was falsely acc used of mishandlinga customer pay ment and was subsequently suspended; and ( 5) that Plaintiff endure d an overa ll hostile work environment from the employ ees as a result of her protec ted activity

. We previously discussed Plaintiff’s denial of promotio n s , s uspension, and the reta liation alleg ations and conclude d that those claims are unsubstantiated. T he rema ining alleg ation in support of Plaintiff’s host i l e wo rk environment claim involves a lack of assistance by her supervisor and disparag ing rema

rks from her co-w orker s. Although Plaintiff can establish that she eng ag ed i n a protec ted activity by filing her EEOC complaints and that Def endant was awa

re of these complaints, the rema inder of Plaintiff’s fac tual asser tions do not support a claim for a hostile work environment. After conductinga totality of the c ircumstance s review , the record is void of any evidenc e that Def endant’ s actions constituted reta liation that was sever e or perva sive en o ug h to cre ate a hostile work environment. The majority of Plaintiff’s alleg a ti o n s o f o f fensive conduct do not contain

a discriminatory or reta liatory animus. “[S] imple teasing , offha nd comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory chang es in the terms and conditions of employ ment.” Faragher v. City o f Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (interna l citation and quotation marks omitted). I n addition, Plaintiff’s alleg ations of a hostile work environment amount to a few isolated incidents that wer e infreque nt and harmless, and even when combined, still did not

cre ate a sever e or perva sively hostile work environment. Plaintiff also faile d t o show how any of the alleg ed commen t s o f re t aliation interfe red with her work perf ormanc e. Thus, Def

endant’ s

16No. 11-5228

conduct did not cre ate a reta liatory hostile environment. There fore , Plaintiff failed to make a prima fac ie showing of her

hostile work environme nt claim based on r etaliation. A. Constructive Discharge L astly , Plaintiff bring s forth a constructive discharg e claim. Plaintiff argues that D e f e n dant’s decision to demote and then remove her from the customer service repr esentative position and then offe r a se vera

nce pa ckag e, supports her claim of c onstructive discha rg e. “To demonstrate a constructive discharg e, Plaintiff must adduce evidenc e to show that 1) the employ er . . . deliberately cre ated intolerable working conditions, as perc eived by a rea sonab l e person, and 2) the employ er did so with t h e i n t en t i o n o f forc ing the employ ee to quit.” Logan v. Denny ’s Inc. , 259 F.3d 558, 568–69 (6th Cir. 2001) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). When evaluating a claim of constructive discharg e, we consider “both the employ er’ s intent and the employ ee’ s objective fee lings.” Id

. at 569. “‘A constructive discharg e exis ts if working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasa nt that a rea sonable person in the employ ee’ s shoes would have felt compelled to resig n.’” Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 305 F.3d 5 4 5 , 554 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Y

ates v. Av co Corp. , 819 F.2d 630, 636–37 (6th Cir. 1987) ). “A plaintiff must show that the employ er intended and could rea sonably have fore seen the impact of its conduct on the employ ee.” Id. The district c ourt proper ly deter mined that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficie nt evidenc e to satisfy the elements of a constructive discharg e. The district found t hat t he “r ecor d does not show that the conditions unde r which Plaintiff was working wer e so intolerable that a rea sonable person

wou l d h av e felt compelled to acc ept Def endant’ s offe r and resig n.” We ag ree . Def endant took

17No. 11-5228

rea sonable steps to addre ss the conce rns about co-w orker hara ssment raised by Plaintiff. W h ile Plaintiff’s demotion and the chang e in her job assig nment wer e cer tainly unfortunate from her point of view, our

judgme nt would not compel a re asonable person in Plaintiff’s shoes to resig n. To be sure, there is evidenc e that Plaintiff was not please d with manag ement or some of her co-w orker s. But as previously explained in our discussion of Plaintiff’s host i le work environment claim, Plaintiff’s evidenc e of hara ssment and disparag ing comments wer e isolated to only a few incidents and by a few individuals and wer e not perva sive enoug h to signific antly a lt e r h e r w o r king conditions. For that rea son, the offe r of a severan ce p ackag e should not be viewed as punitive. Rather, Def endant offe red Plaintiff a

voluntary

sever ance packa g e, which sug g ests that she had the option to acc ept the packa g e and was not compelled to resig n. Fur thermore , Plaintiff never lost any pay or benef its for ref using to acc ept the sever ance packa g e, and the rec ord does not indicate that Plaintiff

rec eived any pressure from manag ement to acc ept t he packag e. Acc ord i n gl y , t h e rec ord does not compel a finding that Def endant created working conditions that wer e objectiv ely intolerable to a

rea sonable person. There fore , the district court did not err in dismiss ing Plain t i ff ’s co n structive discharg e cla im. CONCLUSION We c onclude that the district c ourt did not err in g ranting summary judgme nt to Def endant

on Plaintiff’s claims of rac e discrim ination based on Def endant’ s failure to promote, reta liation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharg e. There fore , we AF F IRM the judgme nt of the district court.

18