Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30872 Su m m ar y Cal endar

LE S LI E A. M AY, P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t, v. F ED EX F RE I GHT E AS T , I NC. , T ODD W AT S ON, D e fe n d a n ts -A p p e lle e s .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U
. S. D
. C
. C as e N o. 07CV 660

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l an tL esl ie A
. M ay ap pea l s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of
sum m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of t h e D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee, F edex F rei gh tE ast, I n c. ( “ Fed ex”)
. Fo rt he r e as o ns di s c us s e d i n g r e at e rde t ai lb e l o w , w e f i nd t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no t e r r w he n i t gr ant e d Fed e x’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt
o n Ma y ’ s T i t l e V I I s e x u a lh a r a s s me n t/h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. A ccord i n gly, w e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 22, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30872 Document: 00511057640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 30872

Plaintiff-Appell ant’s May31 , 20 07 EE OC C har gealleges th e sa me. 1 May’s co mplai nti nc lu ded a dditio nalstat e cl aw cl aims again st Todd Watson . The 2 district co urt, however, de clin ed to ex ercise42U.S.C . § 136 7 supplemental jurisdictionover May’s stat e law clai ms again st Watson. Mayis not appealin g the district co urt’s dismissal of her state law clai ms, an d as a r esult, we c on s id ero nl y wheth er the district co urt erred in grant ing judgme nt on her sexual haras sm ent/hos tilework envir onm ent cl aimagainstFedex. 2 On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , M a y f i l e d a c h a r g e q u e s t i o n n a i r e wi t h t h e E EO C al l egi n g t h at s h e ha d been subj ect ed to sex di scr i m i n ati on an d a h ost i l e w ork
e n v i r o n m e n ta tF e d e x . Af t e rr e c e i v i n ga r i g h tt o s u e l e t t e rf r o m t h e EEOC, 1 M ay f i l ed herl a w su i t ag ai nstFedE x i n fede r aldi st r i c tc our t
. O n A ugust12, 2 20 09 , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t gr ant e d Fed e x’ s m o t i o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t and
e n t e r e d j u d g me n t o n Ma y ’ s s e x u a l h a r a s s me n t/h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. M a y tim e ly file d h e ra p p e a l. “T h i s cou rt rev i ew s a d i stri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo , appl yi ng t he s am e s t andards as t he di st r i c tc our t. ” A llen v. McW an e, I n c. , 593 F. 3d 44 9 , 4 5 0 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. S u m m a r y j u d g m e n ti s wa r r a n t e d wh e n “ t he pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery and di scl osure m ater i al s o n f i l e, an d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow th a t t h e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l fa c t a n d th a t t h e m o v a n t is
e nt i t l e d t o j udg m e nta s a m at t e ro f l aw. ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c )
. “ If t he r e c o r d, t ak e n as a w ho l e , c o ul d no t l e ad a r at i o nalt r i e ro f fac tt o f i nd f o rt he no n- m o vi ng p a rty, th en th ere i s n o gen u i n e i ssu e f or t r ia l. ” Har v i l lv . W e s t w ar d Com m c ’

n, L. L. C. , 4 3 3 F .3d 4 2 8 , 4 3 3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (q u o ta tion m a rk s an d cita tion om itted ). In order t o est abli sh a h ost i l e w ork en vi ronm en tcl ai m , M ay m u st de m o ns t r at e t hat“ ( 1) s he i s [ a] m e m be ro f a pr o t e c t e d g r o u p; (2) sh e w as t he vi c t i m of

uni nvi t ed s exualhar as sm ent ; ( 3) t he har as sm ent w as bas ed o n se x; ( 4) th e h a ra ssm en t aff

ected a ter m , co n d i ti on , o r p ri vil eg e of [M a y’ s] em p l oy m en t;
an d ( 5) her em pl oyer kn ew or shou l d h ave kn ow n of t h e ha rassm en tan d fai l ed to tak e p rom p t rem ed i a laction
. ” Id
. at 434 ( qu o ta tion m arks an d ci t ati on om i t t ed). M ay argu es t h at t h e distr ic tcourterr ed i n gran t i n g sum m ary Case: 09-30872 Document: 00511057640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 30872

“TitleVIIdoes not require that an employer u se th e most seriou s sanctionavail abl e 3 to punishanoffe nder, particul arlywher e, a s h er e t his was th e first documented offense by [the] indivi dualemployee.” Landgraf v . USI Film Products , 9 6 8F .2 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2 ). 3 j u dg m en tforF edex b ecau se i tfoun d t h at the h arassi n g cond u ctw as not sever e or pervasi ve, an d becau se the di st ri ctcou rtcon cl u ded tha th er em pl oyer h ad not fai l e d t o t ak e pr o m pt r e m e di al ac t i o n. O ur r e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d, ho w e ve r , l e ad s u s t o t h e concl u si on t h at M ay can n otest abli sh the f i f t h el em en t– that her
e m pl o ye r “ kne w o r s ho ul d hav e kno w n o f t he har as s m e nt and fai l e d t o t ak e p rom p t rem ed i a laction ” Id
. at4 34 ( quo t at i o n m ar ks and c i t at i o n o m i t t e d) , a nd as a resul t , w e concl u de that t h e di st rict cou rtdi d n oterri n i t s det erm i n ati on t hat M ay c annot es t abl i sh a p rim a fa cie ca s e o f s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t. T h e rec ord i n di cat es t h at w h en M ay n ot i f i ed h er m an aging sup ervi sor, C hri s Pan ks, on Sept em ber17, 2006, t hat s he had be en s ubj ec t ed t o s exual har as s m e nt , Pank s i m m edi at e l y i ni t i at e d a n i nve s t i ga t i o n t hatr e s ul t e d i n a w ri t t en w arn i n g an d tem porary susp e n si on f or t h e of

fen di n g F edex em pl oyee, T odd W atson. B ecau se W atson’ s r ecord w as ot he r w i s e c l e an an d thi s c on st i t u t ed hi s f i r s tof fe ns e , F e de x de t e r m i ne d t hatt e m po r ar y s us pe ns i o n was a s uf f i c i e nt
r e s po ns e t o W at s o n’ s m i s c o nduc t
. N o t ab l y, M ay do e s no tc o nt e s tt hatPank s 3 fai l e d t o t a ke p r o p e r r e m e d i a l a c t i o n. I ns t e a d , M a y c o nt e nd s t ha t she had
r e p o r te d W a ts o n ’ s h a r a s s m e n t p r io rto h e rre p o r tin git to P a n k s , w h e n s h e to ld he ri m m e di at e sup e r vi s o r , L o ui s C at t o n t hat“ s he fe l tunc o m f o r t ab l e a bo utt he
c o nduc to f

W at s o n. ” Fo l l o w i ng he rc o nve r s at i o n wi t h Cat t on , F edex t o o k no
rem edi alact i on . A ccor di n g t o M ay, her conversati on w i t h C att on “ pu tF edex on no t i c e ” t hati tne e de d t o t ak e r e m e di ala c t i on , a n d F edex fai l e d t o do t ak e a ny rem edi alact i on un t i laf t er s h e report ed W atson’ s beh a v ior t o P an ks on S e p te m b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 6
. W atson, how ever, i s m i st ak en i n her character i zati on of h er c on versat i on w i t h C att on as suf

f i ci en tt o pu tF e d e x on noti ce t h at i tshou l d h ave taken Case: 09-30872 Document: 00511057640 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 30872

Maydoe s not co nten d th at Panks was absent durin g her conversation with Catton
. 4 I n her deposition, whichF edexsub mitted as evi dencewithit s motio n for su mmary 5 j u dgme nt, Mayo pe nlyack n owle dgesth at F ed ex’santi -h ara ssm ent po licyr equir ed h ert o firs t reportWatson’s har assment to P anks, not to C atton
. Maydoe s no t di spute that P anks immediately began an investigatio n, intervi ewed co

6 workers and variou s witne sses, an d ultimatel y d ec ided to t emporarilysuspe nd Watso n’s employment. 4 rem ed i a laction
. T h i s C ou rt ha s l on g re cog n i ze d tha t i n ord er to d em on strate t h at an em pl oyer h as fai l ed t o tak e p rom pt rem edi ala ct i on , the em pl oyee m u st f i r sts how t hat s he t oo k “ advant age of [ t he] cor r ec t i ve oppor t uni t i es provi ded by th e em p l oy er.” Ha rv ill , 4 33 F. 3d a t4 37
. T h e u n di s put e d fac t s i n t he pr e s e nt
re co rd , h o w e v e r, e sta b li sh th a t M a y ’ s co n v e rs a tion w ith C a tto n d o e s n o t q u a li fy
as M ay ’ s ha vi ng t ak e n a dv ant ag e o f t h e “ c o r r e c t ive o ppo r t uni t i e s pr o vi de d b y t he
e m pl o ye r . ” Pr i o rt o com m e nc i ng he re m pl o ym e ntw i t h Fe de x, M ayr e c e i ve d,
r e ad , a nd s i gne d t he “ Fed e x Fr e i ghtEas tAss o c i at e s H and bo o k. ” I n t he H a n d b oo k , M a y w a s i n stru cted to rep ort a n y a n d a l lin ci d en ts o f h a ra ssm en t t o th e m a n a g in gs u p e r v is o r , C h r is P a n k s –a n d to o n ly r e p o r t i n c id e n ts to L o u is C att on i n t h e even tof C h ri s Pa n ks’ s absence. 4 Thus , t he c o r r e c t i ve pr o c e dur e t hatF e de x pr o vi de d–t hatM ays i gne d a nd agreed t o– i n st ructed M ay to rep o rt a n y a ct s of ha rassm en tt o P an ks. O n ce 5 M ay repo rte d th e ha rassm en tt o P an ks, t h e un di spu t ed fact s i n t h e rec ord d e m o n s t r a t e th a tF e d e x d id t a k e p r o m p tr e m e d ia l a c t io n . C o n s e q u e n t ly , M a y ’s 6
ar g u m e n t tha tF edex fai l ed to t ak e rem edi alact i on i n res pon se t o her
c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h C a t t o n d o e s n o ts u p p o r th e rh o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. T hi s Cour tha s l o ng r e c o gni z e d t hata n e m pl o ye e c anno ta r gue he re m pl o yer fa il e d to ta k e p r o m p tr e m e d ia l a c t io n w h e n s h e fa il e d to a b id e b y th e c o m p a n y ’s
a n ti-h a r a s s m e n t p o lic y . S ee i d. at 43 9 ( con cl u d i n g th a t em p l oy ee ’ s fa i l u re to
r e p o r t h a r a s s m e n t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e s ta te d co m p a n y p o lic y in e x c u s a b le
w he r e t he e m pl o ye e ha d “ s i gne d a do c um e nti n whi c h s he a c kno w l e dg e d r e c e i pt Case: 09-30872 Document: 00511057640 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 30872

Becau se we concludethat the district court did not err in concludingth at Maycannot 7 estab lishth e fifth element of h er clai m, we donot c onsi der wheth er the district co urt was corre ct toconclu de that May coul d not estab lishth at the sexu al har assment was sufficiently pe rver seo r sever e. 5 o f t he e m pl o ye e ha ndb o o k a nd s t at e d t hat s he unde r s t o o d t he a nt i

- har as s m e nt pol i cy. ” )
. M ay “ can n otp rove tha t[Fed ex] fai l ed t o tak e p rom pt rem edi alact i on w h ere s h e un reasona bl y fai l ed to t ak e adv an ta g e o f correc t i ve opp ort u n i t i es p rov i d ed by [ F ed ex ]. ” Ho c km an v . W e s t w ar d Com m c ’

n, LLC , 407 F. 3d 317, 330 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A ccor di n gl y, M ay’ s host i l e w ork en vi ronm en tcl ai m fai l s s i n ce she can n ot est abli sh the f

i f t h el em en tof

her pri m a f

aci e c as e . The und i s put e d fac t s i n t he

7
r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te t h a t a s s o o n a s M a y a c te d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith F e d e x ’ s a n tihar as s m e ntpo l i c y, Fe de x “ t o o k t he a l l e ga t i o n s e r i o us l y, i tc o n d u c t e dp r o m pta nd t ho r o ugh i nve s t i ga t i o ns , a nd i ti m m e di at e l y i m pl e m e nt e d r e m edi ala nd d i scipli n a ry m ea su res b a sed o n th e resu l ts of su ch i n ve sti ga ti on s. ” W aym i r e v. Harri s Cou n ty, T

ex. , 8 6 F. 3d 4 24 , 4 28 (5t h Ci r . 1 99 6) ( quo t at i o n m ar ks a nd
c ita tio n o m itt e d ). F or t h e af

orem en t i on ed reason s, w e A F F IR M t h e j u dg m en t of t h e di st ri ct
cou rt. Case: 09-30872 Document: 00511057640 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/22/2010