NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0146n.06 No. 09-5443 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

L EO NA RD PERKI

NS, Pla int if f– Ap pe lla nt,

v. F RA N C IS J

. H A RV E Y , S e c r e t ar y o f t h e A r m y, Def endant–Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A P P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I S TR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B e fo re : KE I TH , B OG GS, and GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. PER CURI AM. L eonar d Perkins appea ls from a judg ment of the district cour t dismi ssing his lawsuit on the defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt. Perkins alleg es t hat his employ er, the Army Corps of Eng ineer s, discriminated ag ainst him because he wa s Afric an–Amer ican by failing to give him opportuniti es to work a s a cook on two of its motor vessels. Perkins further alleg es that the actions of various of his c oworke rs cre ated a hostile w ork environment, and we re r etaliations for his fi lin g dis c ri min a tio n c omp la int s. B e c a us e Pe rk ins ha s n ot p ro vid e d e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt t o r a ise a genuine is s u e o f

mate r ia l f

a c t t h a t t h e in d iv id

u a ls s e le c te d

to f il l t h e p o s it io n s h e w an te d

w e re simil arly situated to him, nor that the actions of his coworker s were either ba sed on his rac e or mot ivate d b y

his dis c ri min a tio n c omp la int s, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

. INo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 2 - L e on ard Pe rk ins (“ Pe rk ins ” ), wh o i s A f r i c a n

– A m e ri c an, wa s a

c ivi lia n e mpl oy e e of

the Ar my Corps of Eng ineer s (“ACoE” ) fr om 2000 until 2007. At all t ime s rele vant to this appeal, he was employ ed aboa

rd the Hurley , a dre dg e base d in Memphis, Tennessee . Be cause the Hurley is inactive during the winter months, Perkins was a s ea s o n al employ ee; ne verthe less, he wa s considere d a perma nent employ ee of

the AC o E, and wa s a “f

eder al employ ee” as def

ined in 5 U.S.C. § 2105. F ro m 20 00 to 2 00 4, Pe rk ins he ld t he job of “ sh ipk e epe r, ” wh ic h h e de sc ri be s a s b e ingro ug hly

ana log ou s to tha

t of a ho us e ke e pe r: he c le ane d, sc ru bb e d toi le ts, wa sh e d d ow n s ho we rs , ma de be ds , v a c uu m e d , an d

a s s i s t e d th e s h i p ’ s c o o k s i nt h e g a l l e y. I n Aug ust 2004, a vacanc y was announced for one of the Hurley ’s three Cook positi ons, and Perkins formally

applied for the job. The vac ancy was c onsidered a

“compe titive promotion,” and t h e p r o c e d

u r e f o r f i l l i n g i tc a l l e d f

o r t h e c an d i d a t e s ’ a

p p l i c at i o n s t o b e f

o r w ar d e d t o F o rtR i l e y, Kansa s, where staff at the Civil ian Personn el Oper ations Center de veloped a list of qualified candidates from whic h the Memphis District Selecting Offic ial chose a selec tee. I n November

2004, Perkins’s application was selec ted and he was p ro moted to Cook. As a result, Perkins went f rom a “Grade 6" employ ee, making $16.82 per hour , to a “Gr ade 8" employ ee, making $17.48 pe r hour. Be tween Aug ust and Novembe r 2004, howe ver, be fore the final sele ction was made , the Cook positi on was temporar ily filled by two white contra ct employ ees while the proc ess for de ciding on a per manent ca

ndidate we nt forwa

rd

. T h e co ntrac t cooks wer e employ ees of Fe dSource, a personne l ag ency , and were not fede ral employ ees unde r 5 U.S.C. § 2105. Perkins alleg es that the Hurley ’s Ca

pta in, Ric k N ida

y , to ld h im that he “ did

n’ t ha ve tim e to p roce ss th e paper wo rk ” to appoint Perkins t o t he tempora ry position, and thus denied him the opportunity to work as a

cookNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 3 - until his perma

nent promotion took effe ct in November . As a re sult of this denial, Per kins alleg es that he su ff

e re d a los s o f p ay

(b oth fr om t he le sse r h ourl y

ra te and the re lativ e la c k o f o ve rt ime op po rt un iti e s) , a

nd that th e str e ss a

nd humil iatio n h e fe lt d

ur ingthe we e k th e c on tr a c tor s c a me

a bo ard c a us e d h e a lthpr ob le ms that in c lud e d e le vate d b loo d p re ssu re and blo od su g ar, a s we ll a s a h e m o r r h a g e i nh i s l e f

te ye t h a tr e qu i r e d

s u r g e r y. At about the time Perkins re ceive d his promotion in November 2004, the Hurley e nte re d it s “off -sea son.” I n April 2005, while the Hurley was still inactive, Perkins lear ned about a

nd attempted to a c qu ir e a tw o- we e k te mpo ra ry po sit ion a s a c oo k on the AC oE mot or ve sse l Mississippi . Ag ain, howeve r, the position was fill ed by white tempora

ry worke rs supplied by

Fe dSource. Per

kins alleg es that the Captain of the Mississippi , Tim Milum , told him that the vessel was in Vicksburg , MS and that “it would be more convenie nt to pick up another ma n alre ady in Vicksburg ,” but that he late r l ea rn ed t h at t he Mississippi h a d a c tu a l l y b e e n i n T u n i c a , M S , m u c h c l o s e r t o P e r k i n s ’ s h o m e in Me mph is. When the Hurley

re sume d it s se a so na l dr e dg ingop e ratio ns fo r 20 05 , Pe rk ins wa s on e of its three cooks

. A lt

h o u g h h e w a s in th e p o s it io n h e h a d a p p li e d f o r th e p r e v io u s y e ar , h o w e v er, he

a lle g e s th a t he be g an to have “ inc re a sin g ly ho sti le ” int e ra c tio ns wi th c e rt a in o f his c ow or ke rs . Specifica lly , he alleg es that, betwe en Jul y 11 and Jul y

27, 2005:

• JohnB oyd “ wa

nte d to ph y sic a lly

fi g ht” him

• Cur

tis Willi a ms, a

sh ipk e e pe r, c ur se d at him and , on one oc c a sio n, fa ile d to ring th e s h ip ’ s w a k e - u

p b e ll o u ts id e h is qu arte r s , c a u s in g h im to o v e r s leep and for cing him to use an hour and a half’s leave time so that he would not be dec lare d absent without leaveNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

I n total, Perkins appea

rs to have a

pplied for 276 positions betwee n 2000 and 2007. 1 - 4 - • J ames Tr ice, a

nother shipkee per w ho worke d under Per kins’s supervisio n, curse d at him, acted be lliger ently , and re fused on one o cc asi on to clean a steam table w hen told to so do by Perkins

• Joe S ha ff

e r t old him that Sh a ff

e r d id n ot b e lie ve in f

ili nglaws uit s o r E EO c omp la int s

• On one oc casion, the Hurley depar ted from its boat landing ear lier than usual, a nd no on e ha d in fo rm e d Pe rk ins of the c ha ng e , c a us ing him to mis s the de pa rt ur e and wa it two hours bef

ore he could be picke d up. Perkins alleg es that he infor med his superiors, including Captain Niday , of these events, but that no

corr ective a ction was e ver taken. Perkins makes no a lleg ations as t o hostile interactions with his coworke rs af ter July 27, 2005. He do e s, ho we ve r, a lle g e that he wa s tur ne d do wn fo r y e t ano the r te mpo ra ry a ssi gnmen t i n J uly 2006, this ti me for a

dredg e equipment ope rator’ s position. At the time, candidates for a perma nent 1 dredg e equipment ope rator w ere being considere d, and Captain Nida y had made i t known that any o n e wi th deck e x perie nce c ould fill in on a temporary basis until the permane nt selection wa s made. Per

kins, who had no dec k experience , worke d briefly as a deckha nd so that he could qua lify for the dr edg e equipment ope rator, but the temporary position was instead g iven to Randy Sanderson. Sande rson, a white man, had been a boat operator and a thi rd mate until beingcaug ht wi th d ru g s, se nt t o r e ha

b, and re tur

ne d to an a dmi nis tr a tiv e po sit ion ; he nc e , h e wa s q ua lif ie d to pe rf or m th e dr e dg e e qu ipm e nt o pe rator ’s fu nc tio n o n a

te mpo ra ry ba sis

. As a re sult of these events, Perkins filed a total of four formal c omplaints of discrimination with the Depa

rtment of the Ar

my ’s Equal Employ

ment Opportunity (“EE O”) office

. The fir st three,No. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

Pe r k in s ’ s a tt o r n e y la te r d is c la im e d

th e a g e d isc rimination alleg ations at Perkins’s deposition. 2 Th e y are no t argue d in

his br ie f o n a

pp e a l. - 5 - which pre -date d his init ial complaint at the district cour t, involved the denial of his reque st to work the four- month temporary cook’s position aboar d the Hurley , the denial of his request to work the two-we ek temporary cook’s position aboar d the Mississippi , and his pe rc e ive d mi str e a tme nt b y his

cowor kers, r espec tively , and ea ch compla i nt was subseque ntly denied. He then timely filed a complaint with the district c ourt on May 25, 2006, alleg ing violations of Title VI Iin that (1) he ha d been disc riminated ag ainst beca use of his race and age , including in the cre ation of a hostile wor k 2

e nv ir on me nt, and (2 ) he ha d be e n re ta liate d a g a ins t be c a us e of his de c isi on

to f ile c omp la int s w ith the Eq ua l Empl oy

me nt Op po rt

un ity of fi c e . On Se pte mbe r 7, 200 6, he fi le d a f ourt h c omp la int

wi th the EEO of

fice alleg ing that his non-selec tion f or the dredg e equipment operator position was due to rac e discrimination and r eprisal. When that c laim, too, was denied, Perkins amende d his district

c ourt c omp la int

on Ap ri l 30 , 2 00 7 to inc lud e tho se a lle g a tio ns . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt t o th e de fe nd ant on Ma rc h 1 1, 20 09 . T his timely appea l followed. II We reviewa district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt de novo. In t’ l U nio n v . Cu mm ins , Inc. , 4 34 F .3 d 4 78 , 4 83 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . We wi ll u ph old su c h a g ra nt “ if the ple a din g s, de po sit ion s,

answe rs to interrog atories, and admissions on file, t og ether with affidavits, if any , show that there is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l f

a c t and that th e mo vi ng part y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matter of la

w.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c ). I n considering a motion for summary judgme nt, w e must viewNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 6 - the inf e re nc e s to be dr awn

fr om t he un de rl yingfa c ts i n f

a vo r of the no n- mov ing pa rt y , in th is c a se the plaintiff. See M

atsushita El ec. I

ndus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Cor p. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The paper s supporting the movant are closely scrutinized, where as the oppone nt’s are ind u lg e ntl y tr e a te d. Bohn Aluminum & Brass Corp. v. Storm King Cor p. , 303 F.2d 425, 427 (6th Cir. 1962). The centra l issue is “whe ther the evidenc e presents a sufficient disag ree ment to require submissi on to a jury or whether it is so one-sided t h at o n e p ar t y must prevail as a matter of la

w.” An de rso n v . Li be rty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). III Pe rk ins ’s fi rs t argume nt o n a pp e a l is that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in ho ldi ngthat he w a s una

ble to establish a prima facie case of di scrimination with respe ct t o the AC oE’s failure t o selec t him for the two cook positions. We disagr ee. I n order to r ecover unde r a dispar ate tre atment theory of employ

ment discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he was tre ated less favor ably than others by his e mploy er be cause of his race , color, re ligion, sex, or national orig in. McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 796 n.4 (1973) ( citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000-2(a )(1) ). McD onnell Douglas established the now- familiar framework f

or such c laims as first requir ing the plaintiff to establish a p ri m a fa cie case of rac ial dis c ri min a tio n, a ft e r w hic h th e e mpl oy e r r e c e ive s th e op po rt un ity to a rt icu lat e a

le g iti mate nondiscriminatory

rea son for its actions. Russell v. Univ. of Toledo , 537 F.3d 596, 604 ( 6th Cir. 2008). I f the e mploy er c an ar ticulat e s u ch a re ason, the plaintiff must then show that the state d

rea son was in fa ct pre text ual. Ib id

.No. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

Arguably , Perkins’s claim could also be cast as one that he wa s not promoted, rathe r than 3 one that he w as not hired. The standard for a prima f acie case in a fa ilure-to-pr omote claim re quires a showingthat (1) the e mploy ee is a member of

a prote cted c lass, (2) he applied and w as qualified for pr omotion, (3) he was considere d for a nd denied pr omotion, and (4) anothe r employ ee of simil ar qualifications who was not a member of the protec ted class r ece ived promotion. Sutherland v. Mic h. De p’ t of Tre as ur

y , 344 F.3d 603, 614 (6th Cir. 2003)

. Perkins himself char acte rizes this as a failure

to- hir e c a se , a

nd the re is n o mate ri a l di ff

e re nc e be tw e e n th e sta

nd ard s o n th e se fa c ts. - 7 - The burde n o f es t ablishing a prima fa cie c ase of

disparate treatment is not onerous. Tex. Dep’ t of Cmty. Affair

s v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Where , as in this case, a plaintiff lacks dir e c t e vid e nc e of dis c ri min a tor y int e nt su c h a s an e xplic it state me nt that he wa s n ot h ir e d b e c a us e he wa s black, a

plaintiff may

establish a prima f

acie case o f d i s cr i m i n at ion throug h the use of circ umstantial evidence by showing that (1) he is a member of a prote cted c lass, (2) he applied for and wa s not hired for a

job, (3) he w as qualified f or t he job, and (4) a si milarly -situated per son who was not in the pl aintiff’s protected class was hire d for the job. Seay v. Tenn. Valley Auth. , 339 F.3d 3 454, 463 (6th Cir. 2003). I n this case , it is undisputed that Perkins, as an Afric an–Amer ican, wa s a member of a pr otected class; simil arly , no argument has been made that he was not qualified for the positions for which he applied. Moreove r, thoug h the appe llee does note that Perkins’s “applica tions” for the jobs he soug ht w ere more in the nature of inf ormal ver bal re quests, he does

no t pr e se nt a

de ve lop e d a

rgume nt t hat Pe rk ins fa ile d to of

fe r s uf fi c ien t pro of withre sp e c t to thi s

e le me nt t o s ur

viv e summa

ry jud g me nt. Th e qu e sti on wi th re sp e c t to Pe rk ins ’s c la im, the re fo re , is whether the white employ ees that wer e hired for the positions he sought we re “ simil arly situated” to h im.No. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

Wit h respe ct to the 2006 dec ision not t o offe r Perkins a job as a dredg e equipment ope rator, 4 the district court he ld that the proposed c omparator was not similarly situated bec ause he was more qualified for the position than Perkins. Although Perkins does include in his brief a discussion of the fa ctual basis for

his EEO complaint about that dec ision, he does not argue on appe al that the d e n i a l o f h i s dr e d g e e qu i p m e n to p e r a t o r a p p l i c a t i o nw a s r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y o r r e t a l i a t o r y. - 8 - To e sta bli sh that an e mpl oy e e is s imi larl y sit uate d to a

pla int if f, “ the pla int if

f [mus t] de mon str a te tha

t he or sh e is simi larl y

sit uate d to the [cl a ime d c omp ara tor ] in a ll relev ant

respe cts.” Ercegov ich v. Goody ear Tire & Rubber Co. , 1 54 F .3 d 3 44 , 3 53 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) (e mp has is in orig inal). In evaluating a

proposed c omparator, courts “ should make an independe nt determination as to the re levanc y

of a pa rticular a spect of the plaintiff’s employ ment st at u s an d that of the nonprotec ted employ ee.” Id. at 352. Th e d i s t ri ct court c oncluded that the individuals who we re hire d for the c ook jobs that Perkins wanted w ere not simi larly situated to Per

k in s , b e c a u s e th e y w e r e te mpor ary , non-g overnme nt employ ees. As the re cord indica tes, these e mploy ees w ere supplied by Fe dSource a nd did not have 4 “fe dera l employ ee” status under 5 U.S.C. § 2105. Perkins all but conce des hi s inability to make out a prima fac ie case with respe ct to the two Cook positi ons by

arguing that “[w] hile th e rights, privileg es and be nefits of e mploy ment are rele vant to whether

employ ees a

re similarly situated for temporary positions

. . . this should not be the end of the analy sis.” Perkins g oes on to argue that we should also consider whe ther the pr oposed compar ators would put forth “equa l skill, eff ort, and responsibility ,” and “ perf orm[] under similar workingconditions.” Se e Ru sse ll v . D ra bik , 2 4 F . App ’x 40 8, 41 3 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 1) . Y e t a

dis pa rate treatment plaintiff cannot tre at re levant points o f co m p ar i son as a ty pe of ba lancingtest; asNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 9 - Ercegov ich notes , the similarity must ex ist in all

rele vant re spects. He nce it is irre levant whe ther Pe rk ins ’s pr op os e d c omp arator s w ou ld h a ve e xer c ise d th e same sk ill s, e ff or ts, and re sp on sib ili tie s, under the same conditions, if their rig hts, pr ivilege s, and benef its we re diff

ere nt. I ndeed, the panel in Ru sse ll dis c us se d th e qu e sti on of whe th er a

pa rt ic ula r c omp ara

tor wo uld e xer c ise e qu a l sk ill , e f f o rt , an d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o n l y afte r eliminating two other proposed c omparators on the basis of the fac t that they

wer e uncla ssified state employ ees rathe r than, as the pla intiff herse lf was, a classified (i.e. tenur ed) em p loy ee. Ibid. I n so doing, the court noted that “[a]s a matter of law, c lassified (tenure d) and unc lassified (untenur ed) e mploy ees a re not similarly -situated.” Ibid. B e c a us e the ri g hts , pri vil e g e s, and be ne fi ts co nf e rr e d on Per

kin s b y vir tue of his status a s a fede ral e mploy ee w ere rele vant poi nts of di ffe renc e from the candidates t hat eve ntually obtained the positions at is sue, Perkins wa s not “similarly situated” to those ca

ndidates and c annot establish a prima fa cie c ase of

disparate treatment. IV Perkins next allege s that his coworke rs’ be havior be t we en J uly 11 and 27, 2005, wa s sufficie nt to constitut e a hostile wor k environment. Ag ain, we disa g ree . Ho sti le -w or

k- e nv ir on me nt c la ims “ inv olv e [] re pe a te d co nd uc t” and re qu ir e the pla int if

f t o de mon str a te that “ the wo rk pla c e is p e rm e a te d wi th dis c ri min a tor y int imi datio n, ri dic ule , a

nd ins ult that is su ff

ic ie ntl y se ve re and pe rv a siv e to a lte r the c on dit ion s of the vic tim ’s e mpl oy me nt a nd c re a te an abusive workingenvironment.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 115–16 (2 00 2) . In o rd e r t o s ur

viv e a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, a pla int if

f makin g su c h a

c la im mus t establish that (1) he is a member of a prote cted c lass, (2) he was subjec ted to h arassment, eitherNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 10 - throug h words or ac t i o n s , b ased on the char acte ristic that define s the protec ted class, ( 3) the hara ssment had the ef

fec t of unrea sonably

interfe ring with the p l ai n t i ff’ s work per formanc e and

c re a tin g a n o bje c tiv e ly

int imi datin g , h os til e, or o ff e ns ive wo rk

e nv ir on me nt, and

(4 ) t he re e xists some basis for liability

on the par

t of the employ er. See G race v . USCAR , 5 21 F .3 d 6 55 , 6 78 (6 th Cir. 2008) (apply

ing sta ndard to c laim of hostile work environme nt based on sex). The Supreme Court ha s provided a non-exhaustive list of f actor s to consider whe n deciding wh e the r a ho sti le wo rk e nv ir on me nt exis ts, inc lud ing “ the fr e qu e nc y of the dis c ri min a tor y c on du c t; its severity ; whether

it is phy sically

threatening or humiliating, or a mere offe nsive utteranc e; and whether it unreasona

bly interfe res with an e mploy ee’ s work performa nce.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 23 ( 1993). Fur ther, courts must de termine whe ther the “ workplac e is perme ated wi th ‘ dis c ri mi nator

y int imi datio n, ri dic ule , a

nd ins ult ,’ that is ‘s uf

fi c ie ntl y se ve re or pe rv a siv e to alter the conditions of the victim’s employ ment and create an abusive working environment.’” Id. at 21 (interna l citations omit ted). How ever , “the work e nvironment as a whole must be consider ed rathe r than a

focus on individual ac ts of al l ege d h o stili ty .” Bowman v. ShawneeState Univ. , 220 F.3d 456, 464 ( 6th Cir. 2000). As evidenc e of a hostile work environme nt, Perkins points primarily to the actions of f

our of his cowor

kers. Ac cordingto Perkins, J ohn Boyd beca me re sentful of his attempts to o b t ai n a pr omo tio n and “ wa

nte d to a c tua lly fi stf

ig ht wi th” him . Curt is Wi lli a ms, me anw hil e , “ wo uld c ur se at P e r k in s , ” an d

a ll e g e d ly o n c e in te n ti o n a ll y

f a il e d to r in g th e s h ip ’ s “ w a k e - u p b e ll ” in f r o n t of Perkins’s quarters, causing Per kins to be late for

his shift (which re sulted in Perkins’s forc ed use of sick time). J ames Tr ice, who w orked unde r Perkins, o n o n e occasion bec ame a ng ry andNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

The appellee alleg es that Boyd, Wil liams, Shaf fer , and Tric e ar e all Af

rica n–Americ an, but 5 the re cord a

ppear s to be silent on this poi nt except in the case of Tric e. - 11 - insubordinate whe n asked to c lean a s t eam table. Finally , another of Perkins’s shipmates, Joe Shaffe r, told him that “the filing of lawsuits and EEO complaints is something that he didn’t be lieve in.” Th e mos t f

un dame nta l pr ob le m w iththe a lle g ati ons Pe rk ins make s w ithre sp e c t to the se individuals is t hat they

fail to establish that the complained-of ac tions were ba sed on Perkins’s ra ce. None of the alleg ations made by

the appe llant contain any hint of fac ts that would permit a rational fa c tf inder to i nf e r t hat r a c ia l anim

us pla y e d a pa rt in what a

pp e ar t o h a ve be e n g ard e n- va ri e ty pe rs on a lity

c on fl ic ts b e tw e e n p e op le liv ingand wo rk ingin c los e qu art e rs . 5 Although he makes no mention of it i n h i s brief, Per kins’s deposition testim ony comes closest to establishing a

link between his ra ce a

nd the ac tions of his coworker s when he testifies that Ithink that Mr. Boyd, based upon w hat I have g ather ed in sharingliving qu art e rs wi th h im o ve r t

he y e ars , is the ty

pe of i nd ivi du a l th a t w ou ld t hink th a t it would be horrible for me to—for me to buck in any kind of way ag ainst white folk. I t h i n k t h a tt h a tp o t e n t i a l l y w o u l d m a k e h i m an g r

y. This appea

rs to be pure supposition on P erkins’s pa rt, howeve r, and he points to no l anguag e used by Boyd (or any other fa ctual evide nce) to make the ne cessa ry connec tion between B oy d’s ac tions and P e r k in s ’ s r a c e . M o r eover , though Per kins’s brief c hara cter izes Boy d as extremely ag g ressive a

nd

“ wa nt[i ng ] to a c tua lly fi stf

ig ht wi th him ,” the fa c tua l ba sis fo r t his c la im s e e ms t o h a ve be e n a sin g le

e p i s o d e w i t h n o a

p p ar e n tc o n n e c t i o nt o P e r k i n s ’ s r a c e . A to n e p o i n ti nh i s d e p o s i t i o nt e s t i m o n y, Perkins testified thatNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 12 - Mr . B oyd c a me to m e , in

my fa c e , a nd a sk e d me if I ha d a pro ble m w ithhim

. And if I ’ve g ot a problem with him, would Ilike to do something a bout it right now. And he wa s exhi biting all the posture that you would expect in somebody wh e n th e y

wa nte d to e ng a g e y ou

in a str e e t f ig ht. T h e r e c o r d

d o e s n o ti n d i c a t e h o w t h a tp art i c u l ar i n c i d e n tw a s r e s o l v e d

. L a t e r i nh i s t e s t i m o n y, howeve r, Perkins make s clea r that B oy d never

expli citly threatened him phy sically , but rathe r that it is P erkins’s unde rstanding that Boyd expressed ang er towa rd Perkins to a diff

ere nt coworke r: Q. Di d M r. B oyd e ve r t hr e a te n you

wi th b od ily

ha rm ? A. He never spoke it to me. He never spoke it to me. But he t o l d L ar ry Do ug la s, and tha

t’ s a c c or din g to L arr

y , you ’l l ha

ve to a sk L arr y a bo ut t hat, that he’d like to bust my

head w ide open. Thus the ex t en t t o which Perkins’s own inter actions with Boyd wer e “phy sically threatening or humiliating” would seem to be si g nificantly less than hi s brief implies. Moreove r, L arr y Doug las’s statement t hat Boy d threatened to “bust [P erkins’s] head w ide open” is hearsa y and inadmissible at summary judgme nt. See Sm oot v. United Transp. Union , 246 F.3d 633, 649 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Perkins’s brief

also alludes to statements he made during his de position to the ef fec t that the ship on which he serve d was a “floating plantation.” This char acte rization appare ntly stems from the fa ct that the ship’s Captain, first mate, a nd second mates are all Cauca sian, and that “ the ra dios on the boat, the walkie-talkies, are carrie d by whites g ener ally speaking

. So when it comes to t he g ra vit y of po we r o n th e bo a t, it’ s most lik e a pla ntatio n. ” Th e se state me nts , h ow e ve r, are e nti re ly conclusory

and appe ar to be completely divorce d from the a ctions that Perkins alleg es to have been ha ra ssm e nt.No. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 13 - V Perki n s ’ s f

ina l argument is that he suffe red illeg al re taliation from his coworke rs for his filing of EE O c la ims . T his c la im f are s n o b e tte r t

ha n th e oth e rs . I n order to e stablish a prima fac ie case of re taliation under this court' s Title VI Icase law, an employ ee must establish that (1) he or she eng ag ed in protec ted activity , (2) the employ er kne w of the e xer c ise of

the pr ote c te d r ig ht, (3 ) a

n a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio n wa s su

bs e qu e ntl y take n a g a ins t the e mpl oy e e , a

nd (4 ) t he re wa s a

c a us a l c onne c tio n b e tw e e n th e pr ote c te d a c tiv ity and the a dv e rs e employ ment action. Se e Mo rri

s v . O ldh am Cou nty

Fi sc al C t. , 201 F.3d 784, 792 ( 6th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court has made it c lear that Title VI I ' s retaliation provision protec ts employ ees f rom conduct that would have “dissuade d a re asonable worke r fr om making or suppo rt i n g a cha

rg e of discrimination.” Bu rli ng ton Nor the rn & Sa nta FeRa ilwa yCo. v . W

hite , 548 U.S. 53, 60 (2006). We h a ve re c e ntl y

joi ne d s e ve ra l of

our s ist er c ir c uit s in

ho ldi ngthat “ re ta liatin g a g a ins t a

c omp la ina

nt b y pe rm itt inghe r f

e llo w e mpl oy e e s t o pu ni sh he r f or inv ok inghe r r ig hts un de r T itl e VI I

. . . fall[s] within this statute” in appr opriate c ircumstance s. Hawkins v. Anhe user-Busc h, Inc. , 5 1 7 F. 3 d 3 2 1 , 3 4 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Knox v. Indiana , 93 F.3d 1327, 1334 (7th Cir. 1996)). Ha wkins held that, in order to establish liabilit y

on the par

t of an e mploy er f

or a c oworke r’s reta liatory

conduct, a

plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the cowor ker’s re taliatory

conduct wa s sufficie ntly

sever e so as to dissuade a reasonable wor ker f rom making or supporting a cha rg e of d i s cr i m i n at i o n , (2 ) s u

p erv i s o rs o r m em b er s o f m an age m en th av e a ct u al o r c o n s t ru ct i v e k n o wl ed ge of the c oworke r’s re taliatory behavior , and (3) supervisors or m em b ers of manag ement have condoned, toler ated, or

encour ag ed the a cts of re taliation, or have responde d to the plaintiff’sNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 14 - complaints so inadequate ly that the response manifests indiffe renc e or unr easona bleness under

the circ umstances. Id. at 347. Perkins’s fa ctual alleg ations, even if taken as true , fai l to make out a c ase of cowor ker reta liation under Title VI I . Under the Hawkins s ta

n d ar d , th e c o n d

u c t at i s s u e mu s t be reta lia tor y conduct, not mer ely

uncivil or eve n ab u s i v e b ehavior by itself. Thus, the plaintiff must have pr od uc e d s ome e vid e nc e that th e c omp la ine d- of a c tio ns we re mot ivate d b y the e xer cis e of his pr ote c te d r ig ht. Withthat in min d, it i s si g nif

ic ant t hat—e ve n in du lging a ll i nf e re nc e s in

his favor —Perkins simply

prese nts no evidence that cowor kers Curtis Willi ams, J ames Trice , or John B oyd w e re e ve n a

wa re that he ha d f

ile d c omp la int s, le t a lon e th at th e a c tio ns Pe rk ins de e ms reta liatory

wer e motivated by

those complaints. Certainly , in the case of B oy d, Perkins testified that he first ha d problems with him “when I went on my

journey , trying to g et upg rad ed into that de pa rtme nt t o b e wh a t he wa s. ” Whil e Pe rk ins do e s n ot g iv e a dat e for his fi rs t a lte rc a tio n w ith B oyd, it a pp e ars fr om h is t e sti mony that B oyd a t on e po int a tte mpt e d to s c utt le Pe rk ins ’s a tte mpt s to o bta in a

Coo k’ s p os iti on

by te lli ngthe vic e pr e sid e nt o f the ir un ion that Pe rk ins ha d p re vio us ly lie d a bo ut n e e din g tim e of

f b e c a us e of an e y e sig ht p ro ble m. T his le d to Pe rk ins ’s fi lin g a laws uit ag a in s t B o y d , w h ic h s e e ms to h a v e le d d ir e c tl y to B o y d ’ s a g g r e s s iv e n e s s in th e in c ident in which Boyd was “in [P erkins’s] fac e, and ask[ing] if [P erkins] ha d a problem wi t h h i m . ” P erkins’s difficulties with Boyd seem ther efor e t o h av e b ee n in the nature of a pe rsonality conflict, not

re ta liatio n f

or Pe rk ins ’s pr ote c te d a c tiv iti e s. The a ctions of Perkins’s other cowor kers a re e ven less connec ted to his claim. Accor ding to Perkins’s deposition testimony , he had e x actly o ne conf

rontation with J ames Tice , whichNo. 09-5443

Perkins v. Har

vey

- 15 - amounted to a dispute over clea ning responsibilities in the g alley and for which Tice l ater apolog ized. Curtis Wil liams’s cursingat him appea rs to have be en a similar e pis o d e. T h e one

cowor ker w hom Perkins specifica lly alleg es to h a

v e h a d k n o w le d g e o f

Pe r k ins’s complaints, Shaffer , appea rs to have be en mer ely

expressing a

n opinion. Perkins claimed that Shaffe r “only just spoke to me in a conve rsation by saying that the filing of lawsuits and EEO complaints is something that he did n’ t be lie ve in. ” Ev e n if

we we re to c on sid e r S ha ff e r’ s st a te me nts “ re ta liator y ,” thi s si mpl e dis a g re e me nt, sta

nd inga lon e , is no t on e that is “suff ic ie ntl y se ve re so a s to dis su a de a re a so na ble worke r fr om making or

supporting a

char g e of discr imination.”

VI For the re asons discussed a

bove, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

.