FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT OCTOB ER 23, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10245 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 1 0 5 5 - CV - T- 2 4 - TBM G E R A L D I N E D A R D A R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A S S O C I A T E D O U T D O O R C L U B , I N C ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 23, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G er al di ne D arD ar , proceedi ng pro se, fi l ed sui ti n t he U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctF lorida mod e le d it s c ivi l rights a c t a ft e r T itl eVII , a nd F lorida c ourt s h avesu

bs e qu e ntly 1 applied Title VIIcaselaw to the F CRA. Harper v. B lockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F .3d 1385, 13 87 (1 1th

Cir . 1 99 8) . Co ns e qu e ntly , th eanalysisof Ti tleVIIc a selaw in th is opinion a pp lie s to Da r D ar’ s F CRAc laims a s w e ll. 2 C ou rtfor the M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da agai nsther f orm erem pl oyer , A ss oci at ed O ut doorC l ub, I nc . ( A O C ) , a l l e gi ng hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e nta nd r e t a l i a t i on cl ai m s und erT i t l e V II of the C i vi l R i gh t s A ctof 19 64 , 42 U . S . C . §§ 20 00 e- 2(a) a n d 3 ( a ) . Sh e s u b s e q u e n t l y a me n d e d h e rc o mp l a i n tt o a d d , a mo n g o th e r s , c l a i ms un der the F l ori da C i vi l R i gh t s A ctof 19 92 (F C R A ). 1 D a rD a ra l l e ge d t e n i nc i de nt s of c onduc t , de s c r i be d be l ow , tha ts he c ont e nds es t abl i shed a host i l e w ork env i ronm ent . S he al so al l eged thatA O C re t al i at ed agai nsther f

or com pl ai ni ng abou tthi s c on du ct . A O C m ov ed for s um m ary j ud gm enton bo th t he ho st i l e w ork env i ronm entand ret al i at i on cl ai m s. T he di stri ct courtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm entas t o n i ne of the i nci dent s of c on du ctD arD ar a l l e ge d. I tde ni e d s um m a r y j udgm e nta s t o the r e m a i ni ng i nc i de ntof c onduc ta nd a s t o the r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m . T he c our tthe n c onduc t e d a be nc h tr i a l , f i ndi ng i n f

a vor o f A O C o n D ar D ar’ s rem ai n i n g cl ai m s. D ar D ar ap p eal s b o th th e p art i al g ran to f su m m ary j u d g m en tan d th e ad v erse ju d g m e n t e n te r e d a f

te rth e b e n c h tr ia l. S h e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in approx i m at el y thi rt ee n w ay s. T hese ar gu m ent s a re bestdi vi ded i nt o t hree general c o n te n tio n s : ( 1 ) th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in g r a n tin g p a r tia l s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t,3

(2) thatthe courterre d i n ent er i ng j ud gm entfor A O C on the ho st i l e w ork e nvi r onm e ntc l a i m , a nd ( 3) tha tthe c our te r r e d by e nt e r i ng j udgm e ntf orA O C on the r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m . W e c ons i de re a c h pos i t i on i n tur n. I. D a rD a r ’ s f

i r s tc ont e nt i on i s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by gr a nt i ng s um m a r y j udgm e ntt o A O C a s t o m os tof the a l l e ge d i nc i de nt s of ha r a s s m e nt . S he a r gue s tha te a c h i nc i de nti s r e l e va ntt o e s t a bl i s hi ng a hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e nta nd thatthe di stri ctcourti ncorrec t l y c on si dere d t he al l eged i nci dent s of s exual hara ss m enti n i sol at i on ra ther than as a w ho l e. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ct c our t ’ s gr a ntof

s um m a r y j udgm e nt . S i e r r a C l ub v. T e nn. V a l l e y A uth. , 430 F . 3d 13 37 , 13 45 -46 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). D a rD a ra lle g e d th a t w h ile w o r k in g a s a p a r i- m u tu e l c le r k a t A O C , d /b /a T am pa G re yhou nd T ra ck, she w as subj ec t ed t o a se xu al hara ss m entbeca use: (1) a m al e c l er k p ok ed her i n t he si de, (2) herco-w orkers as ked h ert o acc om pany them f o rd r in k s a f

te rw o r k , ( 3 ) c le r k T o n y G u z m a n a s k e d h e rif s h e w a n te d a w o m a n to br i ng he rf

ood l i ke hi s gi r l f

r i e nd, c l e r k C ha r l y n B r odi e , ha d br oughthi m f ood, ( 4) G uz m a n bum pe d he ron the s houl de ra f t e rs he c om pl a i ne d t o m a na ge m e nta bout h i m , ( 5 ) s h e s a w B r o d i e a n d Gu z m a n o n th e s tr e e ts h e l i v e d o n , ( 6 ) u n k n o wn pe opl e l e ta i routof

he rt i r e s , ( 7) s he w i tne s s e d a f e m a l e c l e r k br i ng i n a m a ga z i ne4

thatsol d u nd erw ea r w i th a “ bu i l t -i n-bu t t , ” ( 8) cl er k R ob er tD i ez as ked h erw hether s he ha d e ve rs e e n s uc h a n a ppa r a tus , ( 9) G uz m a n t ol d he rtha tw hi l e he w a s i n the m en’ s r es troom , he sa w an i nd i vi du al ’ s “ w hal e of a di ck, ” a nd (10) she w as t ou ched repea t edl y on h erbu t t ocks by ot her c l er ks, i ncl ud i ng Joe C api t ano, a m al e, a n d J e a n R e k e r , a f

e m a le . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e nta s t o a l l butthe l a s ti nc i de ntof cond uct , the re peat ed t ou chi ng of D arD ar ’ s but t ocks by ot her c l er ks. Itfoun d t hat th e f ir s t s e v e n in c id e n ts w e r e n o t b a s e d u p o n D a rD a r ’s s e x , a n d th a t in c id e n ts e i ghta nd ni ne — D i e z a s ki ng D a rD a ri f s he ha d e ve rs e e n a “ bui l t - i n- but t ” a nd G u z m a n c o m m e n tin g a b o u t s e e in g a “w h a le o f a d ic k ”

— w e r e is o la te d in c id e n ts nots uf f i c i e nt l y s e ve r e orpe r va s i ve t o c r e a t e a hos t i l e w or ki ng e nvi r onm e nt . T he co u rtco n cl u d ed th atD ar D ar’ s al l eg at i o n s th atp eo p l e k ep tt o u ch i n g h er b u t t o ck s, how e ve r , c r e a t e d a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c tf ortr i a l . W e a gr e e w i th the di stri ctcourtthatsum m ary j ud gm entw as approp ri at e a s t o t he fi rs tse ven i nci dent s. W e hol d, ho w ever , thati nci dent s e i gh tand n i ne shou l d n othave been re sol ved atsum m ary j ud gm entun der the ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e. T i t l e V II proh i bi t s “ ho st i l e w ork env i ronm ent ” s exual hara ss m ent . S ee W a lto n v . J o h n s o n & J o h n s o n S e r v s ., I n c ., 3 4 7 F .3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T o e s ta b lis h a p r im a f

a c ie c a s e o f

h o s tile w o r k e n v ir o n m e n t s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t, a5

pl ai nt i ff m ustshow that : (1) s he bel on gs t o a prot ec t ed grou p, (2) s he has been s ubj e c tt o unw e l c om e ha r a s s m e nt , ( 3) the ha r a s s m e ntw a s ba s e d upon he rs e x, ( 4) the ha r a s s m e nt“ w a s s uf f i c i e nt l y s e ve r e orpe r va s i ve t o a l t e rthe t e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of

e m pl oy m e nta nd c r e a t e a di s c r i m i na t or i l y a bus i ve w or ki ng envi ronm ent , ” a nd (5) the em pl oyeri s r es po nsi bl e f or such an envi ronm ent . Id. at 1 2 7 9

– 8 0 . T he S upr e m e C our tha s i de nt i f i e d f ourf a c t or s t o c ons i de ri n de t e r m i ni ng w hether hara ss i ng cond ucti s s uffi ci ent l y s ever e or per vasi ve t o al t eran e m pl oy e e ’ s t e r m s orc ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nt : ( 1) “ the f r e que nc y of

the di sc ri m i nat ory c on du ct , ” ( 2) the se veri ty of the cond uct , (3) w hether the cond uct

“ i s phy s i c a l l y thr e a t e ni ng orhum i l i a t i ng, ora m e r e of f e ns i ve ut t e r a nc e [ , ] a nd” ( 4) w he the rthe c onduc t“ unr e a s ona bl y i nt e r f e r e s w i th the e m pl oy e e ’ s j ob pe r f or m a nc e . ” H a r r i s v. F or kl i f tS y s . , I nc . , 510 U . S . 17, 23, 114 S . C t . 367, 371 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . “E s ta b lis h in g th a t h a r a s s in g c o n d u c t w a s s u f f ic ie n tly s e v e r e o rp e r v a s iv e to a l t e ra n e m pl oy e e ’ s t e r m s orc ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nti nc l ude s a s ubj e c t i ve a nd a n o b je c tiv e c o m p o n e n t.” M e n d o z a v . B o r d e n , I n c ., 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1999) . W he the rthe obj e c t i ve c om pone ntha s be e n s a t i s f i e d “ c a n be de t e r m i ne d onl y by l ooki ng a ta l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” H a r r i s , 510 U . S . a t23, 1146

S . C t . at3 7 1 . C o u rt s m u st“ ex am i n e th e co n d u cti n co n t ex t , n o tas i so l at ed act s, a nd de t e r m i ne unde rthe t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s w he the rthe ha r a s s i ng c onduc ti s s uf

f i c i e nt l y s e ve r e orpe r va s i ve ” t o c r e a t e a hos t i l e w or ki ng e nvi r onm e nt . M e ndoz a , 195 F . 3d a t1246. D a rD a r ’s f

ir s t s e v e n in s ta n c e s o f

a lle g e d h a r a s s m e n t a r e e a s y to r e s o lv e . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d t hatthey w er e nei ther s exual i n n ature nor based on D ar D a r ’ s s e x. W e a gr e e . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d i nc i de nt s e i ghta nd ni ne— D i ez as ki ng D arD ari f s he had ever se en “ bu i l t -i n-bu t t ” a nd G uzm an com m ent i ng abou tse ei ng a “ w hal e of a di ck”— for a di ff er entre as on . It c o n s id e r e d e a c h in c id e n t in tu r n a n d f o u n d th e m e a c h to b e “is o la te d .” T h is m e th o d o f

a n a ly s is is in c o n s is te n t w ith S u p r e m e C o u r t a n d c ir c u it p r e c e d e n t. B o th the S upr e m e C our ta nd thi s c i r c ui tha s he l d tha tthe s e ve r i ty a nd pe r va s i ve ne s s of

“ hara ss i ng cond uct ” i s j ud ged “ un der the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s. ” M endo za , 195 F . 3d a t1246; s e e O nc a l e v. S undow ne rO f f s hor e S e r vs . , 523 U . S . 75, 81, 118 S . C t . 99 8, 10 02 -03 (19 98 ); H arri s, 51 0 U . S . at23 , 11 4 S . C t . at37 1. T he di stri ct courtshou l d h ave e xam i ned i nci dent s e i gh t , ni ne and t en “ i n con t ext , no tas i s ol a t e d a c t s . ” M e ndoz a , 198 F . 3d a t1246. B r e a ki ng the a l l e ge d ha r a s s i ng c onduc tdow n a c t - by - a c ta nd the n c onc l udi ng tha te a c h a c ti s “ i s ol a t e d” i s a bi tl i ke exec ut i ng a s el f- ful fi l l i ng prop hecy ; every a ctvi ew ed i nd i vi du al l y app ea rsB y c ontra st, thedis tric t c ourt ’s gra nt o f s umm ary

judgme nt o n th efirs t seven in c idents 2 is proper. B eca

use those incidents were not sexual in nature, they do not constitute “hara ssing conduct”to which the totality of circumstances test c an be a pplied. See Mendoza, 195 F .3d at 1246 (applying thetest of severity and per vasivene ss to “hara ssing c onduct.”) 7 is o la te d . A ppl y i ng the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s t e s t , w e hol d tha ti nc i de nt s e i ght a n d n i n e c a n n o tb e r e s o l v e d a tth e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n ts t a g e . I f Da rDa r ’ s o n l y two al l egat i on s w er e of D i ez and G uzm an’ s c rude com m ent s, w e w ou l d rea di l y a gree w i th the di s tr i c tc our ttha tthe s e i ns t a nc e s a r e note ve n c l os e t o s e ve r e e nough or pe r va s i ve e nough t o a l t e rthe t e r m s orc ondi t i ons of D a rD a r ’ s e m pl oy m e nt . B ut D arD aral so al l eged thatshe w as t ou ched repea t edl y on h erbu t t ocks by ot her c l e r ks , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthi s a l l e ga t i on r a i s e d a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctfor tri al . Iti s i m po ss i bl e f or i nci dentt en t o survi ve sum m ary j udgm e nta nd f

ori nc i de nt s e i ghta nd ni ne t o f a l t e r . I f D a rD a r ’ s a l l e ga t i on tha ts he w a s t ouc he d on he rbut t oc ks w a s , by i t s e l f , s uf f i c i e ntt o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s ue f or tr i a l unde rthe t ot a l i ty t e s t , the n thi s a l l e ga t i on pl us tw o a ddi t i ona l a l l e ga t i ons of s e xua l c onduc tm us tne c e s s a r i l y do s o a s w e l l . C ons e que nt l y , w e A F F I R M the 2 di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pa r t i a l gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e nta s t o i nc i de nt s one thr ough se ven and R E V E R S E i tas t o i nci dent s e i gh tand n i ne. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtneed no tcond uctany a dd i t i on al evi dent i ary pr oc e e di ngs on r e m a nd i f i tde t e r m i ne s tha te ve n i f D a rD a r ’ s a l l e ga t i ons a bout8

i nci dent s e i gh tand n i ne ar e true, thatcond uctw hen add ed t o i nci dentt en st i l l do es n o t to ta l s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t. W e le a v e th a t d e c is io n to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. II. D a rD a r ’ s s e c ond c ont e nt i on i s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n e nt e r i ng j ud gm entfor A O C on her host i l e w ork env i ronm entcl ai m . B ec ause the di stri ct c o u r td i d n o tc o n s i d e re v i d e n c e o f two r e l e v a n ti n s t a n c e s o f c o n d u c ta ttr i a l , we c a n n o td e t e r mi n e h o w i two u l d h a v e ru l e d h a d i td o n e s o . Th e r e f o r e , we VA CATE the or de re nt e r i ng j udgm e nton D a rD a r ’ s hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e ntc l a i m a nd R E M A N D for a det er m i nat i on as t o w hether c on si dera t i on of these addi t i on al i ns t a nc e s a l t e r s the c our t ’ s r e s ol ut i on of tha tc l a i m . W ha tw e s a i d i n the pr e vi ous pa r a gr a ph a boutthe pos s i bi l i ty tha tno ne w e vi de nt i a r y pr oc e e di ngs w i l l be r e q u ir e d a p p lie s h e r e a s w e ll. III. F i nal l y, D arD arcont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tent er ed ju d g m en t fo r A O C o n h er re tali atio n claim . “ W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re r r o ra n d its a n a ly s is o f la w d e n o v o .” D o e v . D e k a lb C ounty S c h. D i s t . , 145 F . 3d 1441, 1445 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( r e vi e w i ng be nc h tr i a l of c l a i m b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o th e A me r i c a n s w i th D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t ) ; s e e a l s o Fe d . R. C iv . P . 5 2 ( a ) ( s ta tin g th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t in a b e n c h tr ia l “s h a ll9

notbe s e ta s i de unl e s s c l e a r l y e r r one ous ” ) . “ F i ndi ngs ba s e d on the c r e di bi l i ty of w itn e s s e s d e m a n d e v e n g r e a te rd e f e r e n c e to th e tr ia l c o u r t’s f in d in g s . . . .” B u r r e ll v. B d. of T r s . of G a . M i l i t a r y C ol l . , 125 F . 3d 1390, 1394 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . F ur the r m or e , “ [ w ] he n the r e a r e tw o pe r m i s s i bl e vi e w s of the e vi de nc e , the f

a c t f i nde r ’ s c hoi c e be tw e e n the m c a nnotbe c l e a r l y e r r one ous . ” I d. (quo t at i on s om i t t ed). D arD aral l eged thatA O C re t al i at ed agai nsther by: (1) t er m i nat i ng her em pl oym enti n M ay 20 03 af t ershe c om pl ai ned abo utthe haras sm enti n N ov em ber 20 02 , and (2) cre at i ng a s up er vi sor’ s l og i n January 20 03 , w hi ch cont ai ned t hree c o m p la in ts a g a in s t h e r— tw o f o rb e in g ru d e to c u s to m e r s a n d o n e f o rr e f u s in g to se rve a cust om er . In o rd er t o est ab l i sh a cl ai m o f ret al i at i o n , P l ai n t i ff m u stp ro v e b y a prepon dera nce of the evi dence that : (1) s he engaged i n a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed a c t i vi ty , ( 2) a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on oc c ur r e d, a nd ( 3) the a dve r s e a c t i on w a s r e la te d to h e rp r o te c te d a c tiv itie s . C o u tu v . M a r tin C o u n ty B d . o f C o u n ty C om m ’ r s , 47 F . 3d 1068, 1074 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . T o c ons t i tut e a n a dve r s e a c t i on, a n “ e m pl oy e r ’ s c ha l l e nge d a c t i on . . . w oul d ha ve [ t o ha ve ] be e n m a t e r i a l t o a r e a s ona bl e e m pl oy e e . ” B ur l i ngt on N . & S a nt a F e R y . , C o. v. W hi t e , ___ U . S . ___,

___, 126 S . C t . 2405, 2410 ( 2006) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . M a t e r i a l a c t i onsThe district cour t did not explicitly

addre ss Dar D ar’ s claim that the creation of the 3 su perv iso r’ s lo gwa s an a dv e rs ea c tio n. It w a s n ot. Th ec re atio n o f a c omp laint

logon ly become s “material to a re asonableemployee”once theemployer use s that log a s the basis for dis c ipl iningor

te rm inatin gthee mpl oye e . B urlin gton , _ __ U. S. at __

_, 12 6 S. Ct. at 24 09 . Thu s, Dar D ar ’s t erm i n at i o nwa s th e a dv er s e a ct i o n , n o tth e c re at i o no f th e c o mp l ai ntl o g. 10 a r e thos e tha t“ c oul d w e l l di s s ua de a r e a s ona bl e w or ke rf r om m a ki ng ors uppor t i ng a c ha r ge of

di s c r i m i na t i on. ” I d. a t2409. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d th a t D a rD a r ’s c o m p la in ts o f h a r a s s m e n t c o u ld co n st i tu t e st atu t o ri l y p ro t ect ed act i v i ty an d th ath er t erm i n at i o n w as an ad v erse e m pl oy m e nta c t i on. H ow e ve r , the c our tc onc l ude d tha ts he ha d f a i l e d t o pr ove 3 c a u s a tio n b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r r . D a rD a rl a s tc om pl a i ne d of ha r a s s m e nti n N ove m be r2002, buts he w a s not t er m i nat ed un t i l M ay 20 03 . T he l engt h o f t i m e betw ee n h ercom pl ai nt s a nd her t e r m i na t i on w e i ghs a ga i ns ta f i ndi ng of c a us a t i on. S e e C l a r k C ounty S c h. D i s t . v. B re eden, 53 2 U . S . 26 8, 27 3-74 , 12 1 S . C t . 15 08 , 15 11 (200 1) (r el yi ng on ca se s that he l d a 3- m onth pe r i od a nd a 4- m onth pe r i od w e r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tc a us a t i on t o h ol d t hatthe 20 -m on th p er i od before the courtw as al so i nsuffi ci ent ). D arD ar el i ci t ed t es t i m on y f

rom a f orm erm anager thaton e of hersupervi sors atthe tra ck f e l ttha ts he c om pl a i ne d t oo m uc h a nd w a s l ooki ng t o f i r e he r . H ow e ve r , the f or m e rm a na ge r ’ s s t a t e m e ntoc c ur r e d s om e t i m e i n 2001, a ppr oxi m a t e l y a y e a r - a nd-11

a- hal f pri or t o D arD ar ’ s t er m i nat i on . D uri ng the i nt er veni ng t i m e, D arD ar r e c e iv e d m u ltip le c o m p la in ts f o rb e h a v in g ru d e ly to c u s to m e r s a n d f o rr e f u s in g to se rve a cust om er . T he di stri ctcourtexpl i ci t l y det er m i ned t hatA O C ’ s m anagers w ere cred i b l e w h en th ey t est i fi ed th atD ar D ar w as t erm i n at ed b ased o n th ese com pl ai nt s. W e gra ntdefe re nce t o t he cr edi bi l i ty det er m i nat i on s of the di stri ct court , B urre l l , 12 5 F . 3d at13 94 , and fi nd thati tdi d n otcl ea rl y e rr . W e there fore A FFI RM th e j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f A O C o n D a rD a r ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. R EVER SED i n pa r t , VA C A TED a nd R EM A N D ED i n pa r t , a nd A F F IR M E D i n p art.