### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60747
J EL I NDA ST EW ART Pl ai nt i f f
- Appe l l ant
v. M I S S I S S I P P I T RA NS P OR T AT I ON C OMM I S S I ON D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

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 So ut he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d P R A D O an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. E D ITH H . JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e: M or e t han a year af

t er Jel i nda St ew ar t ( “ St ew ar t” ) w as r eas si gned aw ay f r o m a s upe r vi s o rw ho s he c l ai m e d ha d ha r as s e d he r , t he M i s s i s s i ppi Transpo r t at i on C om m i ss i on pl ac ed heragai n un derh i s con tr ol , and ve r bal h arassm en tres u m ed. Stew ar t filed t h i s l aw sui tal l egi n g a h ost i l e w ork
en vi ronm en tan d ret al i ati on f or report i n g sexu alha rassm en t . Th e di st ri ctcourt g r a n t e d s u m m a r yju d g m e n tto h e re m p lo y e r . W e A F F I R M . S t e w a r t ’s
rea ssign m en t w a s a n “i n terv en i n g a cti on , ” Nat i onal R ai l r oad Pa s s e nger Car v. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60747

2 Mo rga n , 53 6 U . S. 10 1, 11 8, 12 2 S. Ct . 20 61 , 20 75 ( 20 02 ) , t hat c ut o f f t he
e m p lo y e r ’s lia b il it yfo rth e e a r li e rh a r a s s m e n t ; t h e o ffe n d in gs u p e r v is o r ’s
c o m m e nt s di d no tc r e at e a n a ct i o nab l e ho s t i l e w o r k e nvi r o nm e nti n 2 00 6; a nd St e w ar tw as s ubj e c tt o no m at e r i al l y ad ve r s e r e t al i at o r y ac t i o n. I . B A CK GRO UND O n Se pt e m be r 1, 20 03 , St e w ar t be ga n w o r k f o r t h e M i ss i s s i ppi D epa rt m en tof

T ran sport ati on ( “ M D O T ” ) a s a ph ysi call aborer on a crew sup ervi sed by Jerry L of t i n (“ L of

t i n ” ) . S h e received a p rom ot i on a f t er s i x m on t h s, t he f i r s to f s e ve r als he w o ul d r e c e ive i n q ui c k s uc c e s s i o n. L of t in , she assert s, ha rassed her f rom t h e st art . A tt h e end of her f i rst
w eek, L of

t i n al l eged l y t ol d S t ew artt h at s h e w as a prett y la d y a n d invi t ed h er
o n a da t e . She de c l i ne d. Lof t i n con t i nue d t o pur s ue he r , “ hi t t i ng” o n he ra ny t i m e they w ere al on e, i n cl u di n g i n t h e of f i ce t h at t h ey sha red. Stew artf u rt h er
c l a i ms t h a tL o f

t i n t o l d h e r a b o u t h i s i n t i ma t e r e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h a n o t h e rMDOT
em pl oyee, w h om he p ai d $6 00 p er m on t h an d bou gh tcl ot h es f or, an d of

fered S tew a rt a sim i l a r arr a n ge m en t. St e w ar tw as r e l uc t antt o r e po r tLo f t i n ’ s b e h a v i o rb e c a us e s he fe ar e d l o s i ng h e rj o b . Lo f

t i n, s he s a i d , f

r e q u e n t l yb o a s t e d o f h i s c l o s e t i e s t o MDOT
m an agem en tan d of

t en p rom i sed, “I m ay n otg ety ou in the w ash , bu tI ’ l lgetyou in th e rin s e .”N o. 08- 60747

3 I n t he s pri ng of

2004, L of

t i n’ s behavi oresc al at ed i nt o phys i c alt ouc hi ng. W h i l e t h e t w o w ere i n a t ruck t ogether, h e att em pted t o grab her ha n d. H e t ri ed t o ki ss h er on severalocc asi on s. O n on e occasi on , w h en S t ew artw as di st ract ed bypa pe r w o r k, Lo f

t i n m ana ge d t o ki s s he ro n t he c he e k. Af t e rt h e k i s s i n gi n c i d e n t , S t e wa r ta n d a n o t h e rwo ma n o n L o f t i n ’ s c r e w, T eriH ayn es, report ed L of t i n ’ s i n ap pro p ria te se x u a l sta te m e n ts to h is su pervi sor, Chri s Br ya n. On Sep t e m be r2 4, 2 00 4, Br ya n c al l e d a m eet i n g w i t h Lo f t i n,
s upe r vi s o rTo dd Jo r da n, a nd h um an r e s o ur c e s di r e c t o rPhi l i p Co c o . Ac c o r di ng to a m e m o r a n d u m b yB r y a n , L o ftin w a s in s tr u c te d “t h a t t h is b e h a v io ris
u n a c c e p ta b le ” a n d s h o u ld ce a s e . L o ftin “ s ta te d t h a t h e u n d e r s to o d a n d it w o u ld
n o t h a p p e n in th e fu tu r e .” Four days l at er , how ever, L ofti n appro ac hed St ew ar tata r es t aurantas
s he a t e a n i c e cr e am sund ae a nd, a c c o r di ng t o he ra c c o unt , “ t o l d he rt o s av e t he cherry becau se he h ad t h i n gs he w an t ed to do to h er w ith [i t ] l ater . ” Stew art
r epo r t ed t he i nci dentt o Bryan t he f ol l ow i ng m or ni ng. O n Oct o be r1 1, 2 00 4, St e w ar t w as r e m o ve d f r o m Lo f t i n’ s s upe r vi s i o n a nd
as si gned t o a n of

f i c e j ob und erB r yan. She w or ked u nderB r yan unti lJul y 2005 , w hen she w as r eas si gned t o aw or k c r ew s uper vi se d by Lar r y Benn et t . She w as sub sequ en t l y prom ote d to B en n et t ’ s adm i n i st rat ive assi st an t , res pon sibl e f orN o. 08- 60747

4 e nt e r i ng e qui pm e ntus ag e a nd m at e r i al s us ag e r e po r t s f o rt hr e e c o unt i e s a nd
em pl oyee t i m e sheets f or a f ew cr ew s. I n Dec e m be r2 00 5, Benne t ta nno unc e d hi s i m pe ndi ng r e t i rem e nt , a nd St e w ar tl e ar ne d t hatL o f t i n pl anne d t o appl y f o rB e nne t t ’ s pos i t i o n. H e go tt he j ob. S t ew art concedes t h at she w as n ot sub j ectt o an y h arassm en tby L of t i n f or
a b o u t s ix te e n m o n th s , fro m th e tim e s h e w a s re m o v e d fr o m h is s u p e r v is io n in O c t obe r2004 unti lFebr uary 2006. E arl y t h at m on t h , sh ort l y bef ore assu m i n g h i s new posi t i on , L of t i n st u ck h is h e a d in th e d o o ro f S te w a r t’s o ffic e a n d to ld h e rth a t “ h e w a s g o in gto b e in t hatof f i c e a nd t hatt hey w er e g onna be sw ee tand the y w ere goi ng t o have an und er st andi ng. ” O vert he nextm ont h, St ew ar tal l ege s, Lof t i n m ade s i m i l ar
rem arks an d tol d h er t h at he l oved her ap proxi m atel y six ti m es. Stew art
r e po r t e d t he s e i nc i de nt s t o Coc o , t he hum an r e s o ur c e s di r e c t o r , a nd t he n, d is s a tis fie d w ith C o c o ’ s re s p o n s e , ca lle d M D O T ’ s h u m a n re s o u r c e s d iv is io n in J a c k s o n , M is s is s ip p i. O n M a r c h 8 , S t e w a r tw e n tto J a c k s o n a n d g a v e a s t a t e m e n ta b o u tL o ft in ’s h arassm en tt o C arol yn B el l , t h e ag e n cy ’ s c ivi lri gh t s di rect or. Th e agen cy l au n ched an i m m edi ate i n vest i gati on an d put S t ew arton ad m i n i st rat ive l eave,
w i t h f ul lpa y andb e ne f

i t s , w hi l e i tw as c o nduc t e d.N o. 08- 60747

5 T h e i n vest i gati on proved i n concl u sive, bu tB el ldeci ded , i n t h e i n t erestof al lpar t i es , t o s epar at e St ew ar tand Lof t i n . L of

t i n kepthi s pos i t i on butw as
m ove d t o adi f

fer entbu i l di ng. O n M ar c h 30, St ew ar tr et urned t o w or k and w as reassi g n e d to T ravi s B oyl e. Th ou gh her posi t i on , sal ary, an d d u t i es w ere
u n c h a n g e d , S t e w a r t ’ s w o r k l o a d i n c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a b l yb e c a u s e s h e b e c a me
r e s p o n s ib l e f

o re n t e r i n gr e p o r t s f o rt h e f

o u r t e e n c o un t i e s a n d e i g h tc r e ws assi gn e d to B o y le, t asks that had previ ou sl y been shared by al lof t h e ot h er
s upe r vi s o r s ’s e c r e t ar i e s . She w as a l s o g ive n o ve ra y e ar ’ s w o r t h o f e qui pm e nt
u s a g e re p o r ts to e n te r . F u r th e r , S te w a r t cla im s th a t ot h e r e m p lo y e e s w e r e to ld nott o f r at er ni ze w i t h her , thatshe w as n otal l ow ed t o c l os e he rof f i c e do or , t hat t he l o c k s o n h e rd o o rwe r e c h a n g e d , a n d t h a ts h e wa s n o ti n v i t e d t o f u n c t i o ns
w i t h t h e ot h er s ecret ari es. O n A p ri l26 , 20 0 6 , S tew a rt f i l ed an E q u a l E m p l oy m en t O p p ortu n i ty C om m i ss i on ( “ E E O C ”) C harge of D i sc r i m i nat i on agai nstLof t i n f ors exual h a r a s s me n t a n d , o n e mo n t h l a t e r , f i l e d a c iv i l c o mp l a i n t a g a i n s t h i m. On D ece m b er 1 , 2 0 0 6 , sh e received a ri gh t- to-su e l etter p erm i tti n g h er t o instit u te
a c iv il a c tio n u n d e rT itle V II a g a in s t M D O T . S h e a m e n d e d h e rco m p la in t t o jo in t h e agen cy, chargi n g i tw i t h sexua lha rassm en t , m ai n t ai n i n g a h ost i l e w ork
en vi ronm en t , an d ret al i ati o n . (A p p e ll e e M iss iss ip p i T ra n sp o rt ati on C om m i ssi on (“M T C ”) w a s s u b s e q u e n tly s u b s tit u te d fo rM D O T .)N o. 08- 60747

6 O n A u gu st4, 2 008 , t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of M T C an d s t ayed t ri alas t o L of t i n . I n a w el l
- reasoned opi n i on , t h e court concl u ded t h at Stew artcoul d n otprem i se her h arassm en tcl ai m on p re- O ct ober 20 04 c o nduc tb e c aus e i tw as b ar r e d b y Ti t l e VI I ’ s 1 80
- da y s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns andw as n ot par to f a “ c o nt i nui ng” v i o l at i o n du e t o M D O T’ s i nt e r ve ni ng
ac t i on— r eas si gni ng St ew ar taw ay f r om Lof t i n. St andi ng al one, t hea l l e g e d 2006 h arassm e n t w as not suf f i ci en t l y severe orpervasi ve t o al t er t h e condit i on s of St e w ar t ’ s e m pl o ym e nta nd c r e at e an abus ive w o r ki ng e nvi r o nm e nt . Fi nal l y, t he d is t r ic tc o u r tr eje c t e d S t e w a r t ’s r e t a li a t io n c la im , fi n d in gth a tn o n e o f S t e w a r t ’s al l e ge d d e pr iva t i o n s— t he pa i d a dm i ni s t r at ive l e av e , he av i e rw o r kl o ad , e t c . — am o unt e d t o a m at e r i al l y ad ve r s e a c t i o n. St e w ar tt i m e l y ap pe al e d.

I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s de novo a di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o gran tsum m ary j u dg m en tw h en “ n o i ssue of m ater i alfactexi st s and t h e m ovi n g pa rt y i s enti t l ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” De a s v . Ri v e rW e s t, L. P. , 1 5 2 F . 3 d 4 7 1 , 47 5 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). O n a p p e a l, “[f]a c t q u e s t io n s a r e v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le t o t he nonm o va ntand q ue s t i o ns o f l aw ar e r e vi e w e d de no vo . ” D u tch erv. Ing a lls Shi pb ui l di ng , 5 3 F .3 d 7 2 3 , 7 2 5 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). W e w il l a ff ir m th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s de c i s i o n i f

w e “ f i nd t hat no ge nui ne i s s ue o f m at e r i alfac tr e m ai ne d f o rt r i ala nd th a t j u d gm en t w a s p rop er a s a m a tter of l a w . ” Carri erev. S ears, R oebu ck & Co. ,N o. 08- 60747

7 893 F. 2d 98, 102 ( 5t h C i r . 1990) (c i t i ng Celot ex Corp. v. Catr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 1 0 6 S .C t. 2 5 4 8 (19 8 6 )). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n appeal , St ew ar tc hal l enges each of t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s di spo si t ive concl u si on s. A . Juri s di ct i on Fi r s t , ho w e ve r , w e m us ta ddr e s s t hi s c o ur t ’ s j ur i s di c t i o n. O ur c o ur ti s o ne of l i m i t ed j u ri sdi ct i on , w h i ch i s or di n ari l y confi n ed to revi ew of f i n alj u dg m en t s. M TC c ont ends t hatt he di st r i c tcour t ’ s or derdi sm i ss i ng i tf r om t he l i t i gat i on w as i n t erl ocutory, an d thu s its ap pea lbeyon d ou r j u ri sdi ct i on , becau se t h e case aga i n stL of

t i n rem ai n s pen di n g an d the court di d n otcer t i f y i ts d eci si on pu rsuan tt o F ed. R . C iv. P roc 54(b) ( “ w h en m u l t i pl e pa r t i e s are i n vol ved , t h e court
ma yd i r e c te n t r yo f

a f i n a lj u d g me n ta s t o o n e o rmo r e , b u tf e w e rt h a n a l l , c l a i ms or part i es onl y i f

the cou rtexpressl y determ i n es t h at t h ere i s no j u streason f or d e la y .”) . W h ere an order enteri n g j u dg m en ti s un cl e a r, th e i n t en tof t h e di st ri ct
cou rt, a s ref

l ect ed i n t h e order and t h e docum en t s r eferenced i n t h e order, g o v e r n s . K

e l l y v. Le e ’ s O l d Fas hi o ne d Ham bur ge r s , I nc . , 908 F. 2d 1218, 1219–2 0 ( 5t h C i r . 1990) . Furt her , t he i nt entt o c er t i f y a j udgm entas f

i na lm ustbe
u n m i s t a k a b le . Bri ar gro v eSho

ppi ng Cent e rJo i ntV

enture v. P i l

gri m E n t erpri ses , Inc. , 17 0 F . 3 d 53 6 , 5 3 9 (5th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). B u t w h ere the re is un m i stak a b l e inten t,N o. 08- 60747

8 “t a lis m a n ic w o r d s ” a r e n o t r e q u ir e d in o r d e rto s a tis fyR u le 5 4 (b ). I d. ; G ray ex rel . R u d dv. B ever l

y E n t ers . Mi ss. , I

n c. , 3 9 0 F .3d 4 0 0 , 4 0 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). H ere , de sp i te the distri ct cou rt’ s fa i l u re to cit e R u l e 5 4 (b), its i n ten ti on to
r e nde ra f

i nalj udg m e ntw as pl ai n. The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s i ni t i alo r de re nt e r e d a R ul e 5 8 j udgm entdi sm i ss i ng bot h def endant s, M TC and Lof t i n. Lat ert hatday, i t set aside tha t j u d gm en t as erro n eo u s an d en tered a n am en d ed j u d gm en t, di sm i ssi n g on l y M T C . Th ou gh conti n u i n g t o ci t e R u l e 58, t h i s s econd order po i nt e dl y m ak e s t he t w o de t e r m i nat i o ns re qui r e d byR ul e 54(b) . The j udg m e nt di sm i ssi n g M T C w i t h prej u di ce i s un dou btedl y “ an ul t i m ate di sposi t i on ” an d so “fin a l” in n a tu r e . A s to th e s e c o n d , t h e o r d e rr o u g h lyt r a c k s t h e la n g u a g e o f R u le 54(b) , expl i ci t l y “ f

i n di n g n o j u streason t o del ay en t ry o f Ju dg m en t . ” B ecau se t he s e w o r ds e vi nc e a n unm i s t akabl e i nt e ntt o di r e c te nt r y o f a f i nalj udg m e nt ba s e d o n t he c r i t e r i a o f Rul e 5 4(b) , t hi s c o ur tha s j ur i s di c t i o n. B . Con t i nu i ng V i ol at i on S te w a rt con ten d s th a t L ofti n ’ s ac ti on s be gin n i n g in 20 0 3 an d en d i n g in 200 6 consti t u t e a conti n u i n g vi ol ati on f or t h e p u rp oses of

her hosti l e w ork
e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. Ah ostil e w ork en viron m en t ex i sts “w h en the w ork p l a ce is per m ea ted w i th di s c r i m i nat o r y i nt i m i da t i o n, r i di c ul e , and i ns ul t , t hat i s s uf f i c i e nt l y s e ve re or per vas ive t o a l t ert he c ondi t i ons of t h e vic t i m ’ s em pl oym entand c r eat e a n
a b u sive w ork i n g e n viron m en t. ” Nat i o nalR. R . Pas s e nge rC orp. v . Mo rga n ,N o. 08- 60747

9 5 3 6 U .S . 1 0 1 , 1 1 6 , 1 2 2 S .C t. 2 0 6 1 , 2 0 7 4 (2 0 0 2 ). U n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (e)(1 ),
a c har ge m us t be f

i l e d w i t h t he EE O C wi t hi n 18 0 da ys o f t he a l l e ge d “ unl awf ul
em pl oym entpr ac t i c e. ” Fi l i ng a t i m el y c harge i s a pr er equi si t e t o havi ng an
a c tio n a b le cla im . U n l i k e in a ca s e a lle g in gd is c r e te v io la tio n s , a h o s tile
e n v ir o n m e n t p la in tiff is n o t lim ite d t o f

ilin gs u it o n e v e n ts t h a t fa ll w ith in th is statu toryti m e p eriod be ca u se h er claim “i s com p ri sed of a series of sep a ra te acts th a t col l ectively con sti tu te on e ‘ u n l a w ful em p l oy m en t pra cti ce.’” I d. at115. Thus , a c o ur tm ayc o ns i de r“ t he e nt i r e scope o f t he ho s t i l e w o r k e nvi r o nm e nt
c l ai m , ” i nc l udi ng be hav i o r al l e ge d o ut s i de t he 18 0- da y w i ndo w , “ s o l o ng as a ny actcontr ibu t i n g t o t h at host i l e env i ronm en tt ak es p la ce w i t h i n t h e st atutor y ti m e p eriod . ” I

d. at105. Thi s “ c o nt i nui ng vi o l at i o n” do c t r i ne i s l i m i t e d i n thre e w ay s . Fi r s t , t he p la in tiff

m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t t h e “s e p a r a te a c ts ” a r e r e la te d , o re ls e th e r e is
n o s in g le v io la tio n th a t en c o m p a s s e s th e e a r lie r a c ts . I d. at118 , 120 . Sec o nd, t he v i o l at i o n m u stb e c o nt i nui ng; i nt e r ve ni ng ac t i o n b y t he e m pl o ye r , a m o ng oth er th in g s , w i l lsev er th e a cts tha t pre ced ed i t f rom tho se su b seq u en t t o it , p r e c lu d in glia b ility fo rp r e c e d i n g a c ts o u ts id e th e filin gw in d o w . I d. at118. T h ir d , th e co n tin u in gv io la tio n d o c tr in e is t e m p e r e d b yth e co u r t’s e q u ita b le po w e r s , w hi c h m us tb e e xe r c i s e d t o “ ho no rTi t l e VI I ' s r e m e di alpur po s e ‘ w i t ho ut
n eg a ti n g th e p a rti cu l a r p u rp ose of th e fi l i n g re q u i rem en t. ’” I d. at 12 0 ( quo t i ng Z i pes v. Tran s W

orl dA i rl i n es, I

n c. , 4 5 5 U .S . 3 8 5 , 1 0 2 S .C t. 1 1 2 7 ).N o. 08- 60747

10 St e w ar ta s s e r t s that the c o m m e nt s m ad e b y Lof t i n i n 2 00 6— t hathe conti n u ed to l ove h er and t h at t h ey shou l d be sw eett o each othe r— are part of a si n gl e hosti l e w ork en vi ronm en t cl ai m t h at com m en ced w h en h e f i rstha rassed he ri n 2 00 3. I f

t hi s i s s o , t he n unde r t he c o nt i nui ng vi o l at i o n do c t r i ne , t he f i l i ng req u i rem en t i s n o b a r to lia b ility for an y h a ra ssm en t t h a t occu rred pr i or to O ct ober 29, 200 5— 180 day s bef ore s h e f

i l ed h er c h arge. A s an i ni t i alm at t er , St ew ar t ’ s c l ai m i s t i m el y w i t h re spe c tt o t he 2006 i nc i de nt s o f

a l l eged h ar as s m e nt , w hi c h o c c ur r e d wi t hi n t he f i l i ng pe r i o d. C on versel y, al l eged ha rassm en ti n t h e pre- O ct ober 200 4 peri od (bef ore Stew art
w a s fir s t r e m o v e d fr o m L o ftin ’ s s u p e r v is io n ) c a n n o t, s ta n d in ga lo n e , b e a b a s is of l i ab il ity . T h u s, t h e qu est i on i s w h et h er t h e fact u alrec ord at sum m ary j udg m e nt , v i e w e d i n t he l i ght m o s t fav o r ab l e t o St e w ar t , s upp o r t s a c o nt i nui ng vi o l at i o n. W i t h res pect t o rel atedn ess, t h e 2 0 0 6 a ct s al l eged by S t ew artare
s uf f i c i e nt l y “ r e l at e d” t o t ho s e o f 200 3– 04 t o c o ns t i t ut e a s i ngl e “ pr ac t i c e ” f o rt he pur po s e s o f

4 2 U . S. C. § 2 00 0e
- 5( e ) ( 1) . A s i n Mo rga n , the pr e- an d po stl i m ita tions peri od i n ci den t s i n vol ved t h e sam e t yp e of ha rassm en tan d w ere per pet r at ed byt he s am e m anager , Loft i n . 5 3 6 U . S. at120, 122 S. C t . at2076. T h ou gh the pa rti es d is p u te t h e n a tu re of the 20 0 6 acts— M T C i m p l i es th a t,
r at he rt han har as s St e w ar t , Lo f t i n a t t em pte d t o s m o o t h o ve rt he i rpr e vi o us di f f i cul t i es— at t h i s s t age, w e rel y on Stew art ’ s descr i pti on of t h ei r c on t act s,N o. 08- 60747

Thatwe ultimatelyfin d th at the 200 6 acts, stan ding alone , wer e ne it he rsevere or 1 pervasive enou ghto create a hostil e work environ ment is irrelevant to our continuing viol atio n an alysi s. See Morgan , 5 3 6U .S . at 1 1 5 , 1 2 2S .C t. at 2 0 7 3(“indirect co ntr a stto di screteact s, asin gleactof h ara ssm ent maynotb e actio n ab leo nitsown .”). 11 w hi c h wer e s i m i l ari n ki nd a nd f r e quency to t ho s e s he a l l e ge s o c c ur r e d i n t he pa s t . On t hatb as i s , t he pl ai nt i f f ha s c ar r i e d he rb ur de n. 1 The t w o pe r i o ds o f a l l e ged h aras s m e nta r e , ho w e ve r , s e ve r e d b y t he i n t ervening acts of

Stew art ’ s em pl oyer. “W h en a com pa n y, once i n f orm ed of al l e ga t i o ns o f

s e xua lha r as s m e nt , t ak e s pr o m ptr e m e di ala c t i o n t o pr ot e c tt he
c l ai m ant , t he c om pany m ay av oi d Ti t l e VII l i abi l i ty. ” Hockm an v. W est w ard Co m m un i c a t i o ns , LLC , 4 0 7 F. 3 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 9 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q uo t i ng Na sh v. E lect rospace Sys. , I

n c. , 9 F. 3d 401, 402 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) ) . “ ‘ Prom ptr em edi al
a cti on ’m u st be ‘ rea son a b l y c a lc u la te d ’to en d the h a ra ssm en t. ” I d. ( quo t i ng S ki d m ore v. Prec i si on Pri n t i ng an dPackagi ng, I n c. , 18 8 F . 3 d 60 6 , 61 5 ( 5 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 )) . In O ctob er 2 0 0 4 , after S te w a r t re p orted L ofti n ’ s i n a p p rop ri a te
c onductt o hi s supervi so r , M D O T prom pt l y r epr i m anded Lof t i n and, c r uci al l y,
rea ssign ed S tew a rt f rom L ofti n ’ s su p erv i sion . S tew a rt con ced es th a t t h ese acts
e nde d Lo f

t i n’ s ha r as s m e ntf

o ra per i o d of

si xt e e n m o nt hs , unt i lshe w as b r o ugh t b a ck u n d er h i s su p er v i sion . T h eyalso p rov ed satisfa ctory , at th e ti m e, to S t ew art , w h o decl i n ed t o pur s ue o t he rc o r r e c t ive opp ort u n i t i es once she ha d been
r e as s i gne d. Fur t he r , M D O T’ s r e s po ns e de m on st r at e s t he pr o m pt ne s s a nd appro pri at enes s t hatw e have pr evi ous l y hel d t o con st i t ut e pr om ptr em edi alN o. 08- 60747

Other circuits are in agreement. G reer v. Paulso n, 5 05 F.3 d 13 06, 131 4–1 5 (D.C . C ir. 2 200 7); Hol mes v . Utah, Department of WorkforceServices, 4 83 F.3 d 1 05 7, 1 064(10th Cir. 2 0 0 7); Wats onv . Blu e C ircl e, I nc. , 3 2 4F .3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 8

– 5 9( 1 1 thC ir . 2 0 0 3).

See Crowleyv . L .L. Bean, Inc . , 3 03 F . 3d38 7, 4 03–04 (1st C ir. 2 002) (not an 3 intervenin gc au sewh ere re me dywa s noteff ective) . 12 a c tio n a s a m a tt e ro f la w . S ee Hi r r as v . Nat i o nalR. R . Pas s e nge rCor p. , 95 F. 3d 3 9 6 , 4 0 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (li stin gca se s). W e rej ectS t ew art ’ s con t en t i on tha tM D O T “ n egated” any rem edi alef fect
o f t he t r ans fe rb y as s i gni ng Lof t i n a s St e w ar t ’ s s upe r vi s o ra ga i n i n 2 00 6. The pr o pe rf

o c us o f i nqui r y i s t he e m pl o ye r ’ s r e m e di ala c t i o n in ad dr e s s i ng t he
e m p lo y e e ’ s co m p l a i n t s i n t h e fir s t in s ta n c e . Ho c km an , 407 F. 3d at329. A 2
s ubs e que nta c tc an be r e l e va ntt o t hi s i nqui r y o nl y w he n i tc as t s do ubto n t he
reaso nab l e ne s s o f

t he r e m e di ala c t i o n i n t he c o nt e xto f t he e m pl o ye r ’ s pol i ci es
a n d pr a cti ces. In th i s ca se, th e em p l oy er’ s a cti on w a s rea son a b l y ca l cu l a ted to 3 end t he har as sm entand, i n fac t , di d s o. That t he har as sm entm ay have
r es um ed due t o a subs equent dec i si on ent i r el y unconnec t ed t o t he rem ed i al act i on i s of

no m om en t . T o hol d otherw i se w ou l d castdou bt on t h e safe ha rbor of prom pt r em edi alact i on . E m pl oyers m i gh tbel i eve t h at t h ey coul d on l y avert l i a b i l i t yb yf

i r i n ga n a l l e g e d h a r a s s e r , y e tt h e l a w d o e s n o td e ma n d s u c h e x t r e me act i on i n every case. Tit l e V II ’ s pu rpose i s r em edi al , not pu n i t ive.N o. 08- 60747

13 Bec aus e M D O T’ s p ro m ptr e m e di ala c t i o n i n 2 00 4 w as a n i nt e r ve ni ng act i on un der Mo rga n , St e w ar tm ayno tr e l y o n t he c o nt i nui ng vi o l at i o n do c t r i ne to h old M D C l i a b l e for an y p re-O ctob er 2 0 0 4 h a ra ssm en t. C. H os t i l e W or k Envi r onm e nt St e w ar tne xtc o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o u rterr e d i n f i ndi ng t hatt he al l ege d 2006 h ar as sm ent , s t andi ng al one, w as nei t hers eve r e no rpervas ive
en ou gh to crea te a h ostil e w ork en viron m en t. Bec aus e a ny pr e - O c t o be r200 4 har as s m e ntca nno tco ns t i t ut e a c o nt i nui ng
v io la tio n in co nju n c tio n w ith th e a lle g e d 2 0 0 6 h a r a s s m e n t, S te w a r t m a yre ly
o nl y upo n Lo f

t i n’ s 20 06 c o nduc t t o pr o ve a ho s t i l e w o r k e nvi r o nm e nt . W he r e t he
c l ai m o f

ha r as sm en t i s a ga i ns ta s upe r vi s o r , pr o vi ng a ho s t i l e w o r ki ng
en vi ronm en trequ ires f ou r el em en t s: “ ( 1) t h at t h e em pl oyee bel on gs t o a pro t ec t ed c l as s; ( 2) t hatt he e m pl oye e w a s s ubj ec tt o unw el c om e s exual har as s m e nt ; ( 3) t hat t he ha r as s m e ntw as b as e d o n s e x; a nd ( 4) t hatt he h a ra ssm en t aff

ect ed a ‘ t er m , c ondi t i on , or p ri vil eg e’of em p l oy m en t. ” L a u d er d a le
v. Texas D e

part m e ntof

C r i m i nalJust i c e , I

nst i t ut i onalD i v. , 512 F. 3d 157, 163 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e a gr e e w i t h t he di st ri ctcour tt hatSt e w ar t ’ s a r gum e ntfai l s o n t he f our t h el em ent . To af fec ta t er m , c ondi t i on, orpr ivi l ege of em pl oym ent , “ se xual har as s m e ntm us tb e s uf f i c i e nt l y s e ve r e o rpe r va s ive s o a s t o a l t e rt he c o ndi t i o ns of em p l oy m en t an d crea te an ab u sive w o r k i n g e n viron m en t. ” Na t i o n a lR. R.N o. 08- 60747

14 Pas s e nge rCor

p. v . Mo rga n , 5 3 6 U. S. 1 0 1 , 1 1 6 , 1 2 2 S. Ct . 2 0 6 1 , 2 0 7 4 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . To determ i n e w h et h er c on du cti s s evere or perva sive, w e w i l l l ook to t h e t ot al i t y of th e cir c u m s ta n c e s . Laude r dalev . Te x . D e p'tof C r i m i nalJus t i c e , I

ns t i t ut i o nal D i v. , 512 F . 3d 1 57, 1 63 (5t h C i r. 200 7) . R el evan tfact ors i n cl u de “t h e f requ en cy
o f t he di s c r i m i nat o r y c o nduc t ; i t s s e ve r i t y; w he t he ri ti s phy s i c al l y t hr e at e ni ng
o r h u m ilia tin g , o r a m e r e o ffe n s iv e u tt e r a n c e ; a n d w h e t h e rit u n r e a s o n a b ly i n terferes w i th an em p l oy ee ’ s w ork pe rform a n ce.” Harvi l lv. W est w ard Co m m un i c a t i o ns , LLC , 433 F . 3 d 428, 434 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Harr i s v. F orkl if tS ys. , I n c. , 5 1 0 U . S . 17 , 2 3 ( 1 9 9 3 )) . F i n a l l y, t h e con d u ct m u st be bo th

“ o bj ect ivel y of

fen sive, m ean i n g t h at a r eason able person w ou l d f i n d itho s t i l e a nd abusive, and s ubj ec t ivel y o f fens ive, m eani ng t hatt he vi c t i m per ceive d itt o b e so.” S h ep h er dv. Co mp tro ller of P u b . A cc o u n ts , 1 6 8 F .3d 8 7 1 , 8 7 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). St e war t a l l e g e s t ha t , i n 2 0 0 6 , Lo f t i n s a i d t ha t he a nd St e war t s ho ul d be “s w e e t” to e a c h o th e ra n d s ta te d th a t h e lo v e d h e ra p p r o x im a te lys ixtim e s . T h is
c onductoc c urr ed o vert he c our se of abo utone m ont h, m eani ng t hatSt ew ar tw as al l eg e d ly s u b jec t to on e su b jec tiv e ly o ffen siv e u tte ra n ce b yL o ftin ev e ry few day s. T h ese oc casi on alst atem en t s di d n otcr eate a host i l e w ork en vi ronm en tbecau se t h ey w ere not severe, ph ysi cal l y t h reat en i n g, or hu m i l i ati n g; at m ost , t h ey w ere
u n w an t e d a nd o f

fe ns ive . Thi s i s no tt he ki nd o f c o nduc tt hatw o ul d i nt e r fere
u n reasona bl y w i t h a reason able person’ s w ork perf orm an ce ordest roy her
o p p o r tu n ity to s u c c e e d in th e w o r k p la c e . S ee S h ep h er dv. Co mp tro ller of P u b licN o. 08- 60747

15 Acc o unt s of St at e of

Te x as , 168 F . 3d871 , 874 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 9) ( s e xua lt e as i ng and
s o m e t o uc hi ng o ve r a pe r i o d o f t w o y e ar s w as “ no ts e ve r e ” b e c aus e i tw as “ no tt he t yp e o f e xt r e m e co nduc tt hatw o ul d pr e ve nt[ t he pl ai nt i f f ] f r o m s uc c e e di ng i n t he
w o r k p la c e .”). O b je c tiv e ly , a re a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld n o t fin d L o ftin ’ s a c tio n s in 20 06 t o b e o f

fe ns ive e no ugh t o c o ns t i t ut e a hos t i l e w o r k env i r o nm e nt . Thus , t he h a r a s s me n tS t e w a r ta l l e g e s i s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r th e rc l a i m. S te w a r t u r g e s th a t L o ftin ’ s co m m e n ts m u s t b e p la c e d in th e co n te x t o f h is
e ar l i e ro f

fe ns ive b e hav i o r , w hi c h pr e c i pi t at e d he rr e m o va lf r o m hi s s upe r vi s i o n. T h i s cou rt ha s rep ea ted ly a p p rov ed of th e introd u cti on of p rev i ou s con d u ct t o i l l u m i n ate c u rrently act i on able i ssues i n di scr i m i n ati on an d h arassm en tcases . See , e . g. , Cort es v. Maxu s Ex p lor ati on Co. , 9 7 7 F .2d 1 9 5 , 1 9 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); R am sey v. Hend ers on , 2 8 6 F .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 6 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); S ee als o Un it edA ir Li ne s , I nc . v . Evan s , 431 U . S . 553 , 558 , 97 S . C t. 1 8 8 5 , 188 9 ( 197 7) . Th i s does
n o t m e a n , o f c o u r s e , th a t t h e e x is te n c e o f p r io rco n d u c t o rm i s c o n d u c t w ill
n e c e s s a r ilycr e a te a fa c t iss u e o n th e a c tio n a b le e v e n ts b e fo r e th e co u r t. S o it is her e. Lof

t i n’ s i so l at ed 2006 r em ar ks ar e not obj ec t ivel y se ver e or pe rv a si ve
en ou gh t o sup port a g e n u i n e i ssue of sexua lha rassm en t , al t h ou gh , given S t ew art ’ s previ ou s experi en ce, she f ou n d them subj ect ivel y of fen sive. T h e t est fo rs e x u a l h a r a s s m e n tc a n n o tb e m e ts o le l y b yb o ls t e r in gth e e m p lo y e e ’s subj ec t ive per c e p t i o n o f o t he r wi s e b e ni gn s pee c h un ac c om pani ed byany phys i c al act i on againsther.N o. 08- 60747

16 D . R et al i at i on S tew a rt also con ten d s th a t th ere i s a ge n u i n e i ssu e of m a terial fact as to
w h et h er s h e w as su bj ect ed to m ater i al l y ad verse act i on s i n ret al i ati on f or rep ortingsex u a lh a ra ssm en t. To es t abl i sh a p ri m a fac i e c as e o f r et al i at i on, a pl ai nt i f f m usts how t hat ( 1) she pa rt i ci pa t ed i n a T i t l e V II prot ect ed activi t y, ( 2) she su f fered an adv erse
em pl oym en tact i on by h er em pl oyer, an d ( 3) t h ere i s acausal conn ect i on betw een th e p r o te c te d a c tiv ity a n d th e a d v e r s e a c tio n . Ar y a i n v . W

a l
- Ma r tSt o r e s Tex . LP , 53 4 F. 3d4 73, 4 84 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) . Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e i f t he p la in tiff

ca n n o t s u p p o r t a ll th r e e e le m e n ts . H u n tv. R a p id es Heal t h care S

ys. LLC , 277 F. 3d 757, 769 ( 5t h C i r. 2001) . St ew ar ts at i sf i ed t he f

i r stel em entby rep ortingL ofti n ’ s a l l eg ed co n d u ct to B ell , a n a ctivity p rotecte d u n d er T i tl e V II. 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -3 (a ). To c ons t i t ut e pr ohibi t ed r et al i at i on, an em pl oym entac t i on m ustbe

“ m ate ria ll y adv erse, ” one that w ou l d “di ssuad e[] a reasonab l e w orker f rom
m aki ng or suppor t i ng a c harge of di sc r i m i nat i on . ” B u r l i ngt o n No r t he r n an d S an t a Fe Ry. Co. v. W h ite , 5 48 U . S. 5 3, 6 8, 1 26 S. Ct . 2 40 5, 2 41 5 ( 20 06 ) . The pu rpose of

t h i s objec t ive st an da rd i s “t o sep arate si gn i f i can tfr om trivi alha rm s”
an d “f i l t er out com pl ai n t s at t acking the ordi n ary t ribu l ati on s of t h e w orkp l ace,
s uc h a s t he s po radi c u se o f a bus ive l ang uag e , g e nde r - r e l at e d j o ke s , a nd
occa sion a lteas i n g.” I d. E ven w he n a n a dv e r s e a c t i o n i s i nt e nde d b y t heN o. 08- 60747

17 e m p lo y e ra s re ta lia tio n , it m u s t s till s a tis fyt h i s m a t e r ia lity s ta n d a r d . I d. at 67– 6 8 , 1 2 6 S. C t . at 241 4 ( exp l ai n i n g t h at Ti t l e V II ’ s anti
- ret al i ati on provi si on “p ro te cts a n in d ivid u a l f ro m n o t a llre ta li a tion ”). The pa r t i e s di s put e w he t he rs he s uf fe r e d a n a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nta c t i o n. S t ew artpoi n t s t o severaleven t s: ( 1) she w as pl aced on adm i n i st rat ive l eave f or t hr e e w e e ks ; ( 2) u po n r e t ur ni ng, s he w as r e as s i gne d t o ane w s upe r vi s o ra nd give n a he av i e rw o r kl o ad ; ( 3) pe r s o nali t e m s w e r e t ak e n f r o m he rde s k; ( 4) t he l ocks on h er of

f i ce had been cha n ged an d s h e w as not al l ow ed to cl ose her of f i ce d o o r ; a n d ( 5 ) s h e wa s c h a s t i s e d b ys u p e r i o r s a n d o s t r a c i z e d by c o - wo r k e r s . As
a m att er of

l aw , t h e l att er t h ree of t h ese al l egati on s do n otri se t o t h e l evelof
m ater i aladv ersi t y bu ti n stead fal li n t o t h e cat egory of “ pett y sl i gh t s, m i n or
ann oy a n ces, and s i m pl e l ac k of go od m anners ” t hatt he Suprem e Courthas
r e c o g n iz e d a r e n o t a c tio n a b le re ta lia to r yco n d u c t. W h ite , 548 U . S. at68, 12 6 S. Ct . a t2 41 5. Ti t l e V II “ do e s no ts e tf o r t h ‘ a ge ne r alc ivi l i t y c o de f o rt he A m erican w ork p l a ce.’” I d. ( quot i ng O n cal e v. S u n d ow n er Of f shore S ervi ces , I

n c. , 523 U . S . 75, 80, 118 S . C t . 998 , 140 L . E d. 2d 201 ( 199 8) ) . T h ese act i on s w ou l d n ot di s s uad e a r e as o nab l e e m pl o ye e f r o m m ak i ng a c har ge o f di s c r i m i nat i o n. P la c in ga n e m p lo y e e o n p a id a d m in is tr a tiv e le a v e, h ow ev er, ca n n ot b e s a id t o b e a“ pet t y s l i ght . ” I ndeed, depe ndi ng on t he c i r c um st ance s, i t m a y range f r o m a c o m p l e t e l y b e n i g n m e a s u r e t o o n e t h a t s t i g m a t i z e s a n e m p l o y e e a nd
c ause s si gni f

i c antem ot i onaldi st r es s. For c ed l eave m ay e ve n af fec tanN o. 08- 60747

18 e m pl o ye e ’ s o ppo r t uni t i e s f o r f ut ur e ad va nc e m e nt . But “ t he s i gni f i c anc e o f

a ny gi ven actof

ret al i ati on w i l lof

t en dep en d u pon t h e parti cul ar circ u m st an ces. C on tex t m a tters. ” B u rling ton No rth er n a n dS a n taF e Ry . Co . v . W

h ite , 5 48 U . S. 53, 69, 12 6 S . C t . 2405, 2415 ( 2006) . The c ont exther e de m ons t r at es t hat St e w ar ts uf

fe r e d no a dv e r s e i m pa c ta s a r e s ul to f b e i ng pl ac e d o n l e av e . She conti n u ed to receive h er sal ary an d w as not r equ est ed to u se any accum u l ated l eave t i m e. O nl y t hre e w ee ks l at er , s he w as r ein stated w i t h t he s am e s al ar y. T h e r e w a s n o s u g g e s t io n th a tth e le a v e w a s th e r e s u lto f a n y fa u lto n S t e w a r t ’s par t , s uch as m i ghtc ar r y a st i gm a i n t he w or kpl ac e. St ew ar t ’ s adm i ni st r at ive l e av e w as no t , und e rt he s e c i r c um s t anc e s , a n a dv e r s e a c t i o n. F i n al l y, w e consi der w h et h er Stew art ’ s r eassi gn m en tt o a n ew sup ervi sor, Tr av i s Boy l e , a nd h e av i e rw o r kl o adc o ns t i t ut e d am at e r i al l y ad ver s e a c t i o n. St e w ar tha d s e r ve d a s a n a dm i ni s t r at ive a s s i s t antt o Benne t tand t he n Lo f t i n,
eac h of w hom ov er sa w t hre e cou n ti es and a few w or k c r ew s. She w as
r e s po ns ibl e f

o re nt e r i ng m at e r i al s us ag e r e po r t s f o re ac h o f

t he c o unt i e s a nd t i m e sheet i n f

orm ati on f

or t h e w orkers on t h e cr ew s. A f t er r et u rni n g f

rom l eave, St e w ar twa s r e a s s i g ne d t o w o r k und e rBoy l e , w ho o ve r s aw f o ur t e e n c o unt i e s a nd
e ig h tc r e w s . T h o u g h h e rp o s it io n , p a y , a n d h o u r s w e r e u n c h a n g e d , S t e w a r t ’s
w o r k lo a d in c r e a s e d s ig n ific a n tly b e c a u s e o f B o y le ’ s g r e a te rre s p o n s ib ilitie s . W e have r ec ogni ze d pre vi ous l y t hat“ a l at er alr eas si gnm entt o apos i t i on w i t h equal p a yco u ld a m o u n t t o a m a te r ia llya d v e r s e a c tio n in s o m e cir c u m s ta n c e s .”N o. 08- 60747

Stewart points to an all eged admissio n by a MDOT supervisor, Willia m Parker, th at 4 Stewart’ s workloa d w as incre ased “because theywanted to get rid of her” and asserts that it raise s a ge nuine issue of material fact that should h ave defeate d summary ju dgment. The fact is at i ssue—MTCpre sents a statement b y Parker denying the comment—b ut it is not material to the que stionof wheth er S tewart’s tran sfer, and increase d duties, constitute d a materially a dver seactio n . 19 A ry a in , 5 3 4 F .3 d a t 4 8 5 . O n c e a g a in , “ [ w ]h e th e ra p a r tic u la rre a s s ig n m e n t is
m at e r i al l y ad ve r s e de pe nds upo n t he c i r c um s t anc e s o f t he pa r t i c ul arc as e , a nd
s h o u ld b e ju d g e d fr o m th e p e r s p e c t iv e o f a r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n in th e p la in t if f’s p ositi on , co n sider i n g a l lthe ci rcu m stan ces.” W h ite , 548 U . S. at71, 126 S. C t . at 241 7 ( 200 6) . S t ew art ’ s reassi gn m en ta f fect ed n on e of h er j ob t i t l e, grade, hou rs,
sa l ar y, orbe nef

i t s. H erdut i es w er e unc hanged, and t her e i s no e videnc e t hat she su f fered a di m i n u t i on i n prest i ge or c h an ge i n st an di n g am on g h er c ow o r k e r s . S ee i d. I ndeed, St ew ar t t hrived und erB oyl e, m anagi ng t he w or kl oad
w el lan d receivi n g a prom ot i on i n 200 7. H er s u cces s c on f i rm s t h at her t ran sfer
w as no ta dv e r s e i n na t ur e . The r e as s i gnm e nt , al t ho ugh i m po s i ng m o r e w o r k, 4 carri ed greater responsibi l i t y an d w o u ld not di ssuad e a reasonab l e em pl oyee f r o m c har gi ng di s c r i m i nat i o n. B ecau se M D O T di d not t ak e an y ad verse em pl oym en t action a g ai n st S t ew art , her ret al i ati on cl ai m fai l s. I V . C ONC L US I ON Fort he r e as o ns di s c us s e d a bo ve , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s um m ar y j udg m e nt i n favor of

M T C i s AF FI RM ED .N o. 08- 60747

Th e facts set forthinthis sectio n come from Stewart’s deposition. Of course, Loftin 1 mayh ave adifferentview, and I express no o pinion on Stewart’ s v er ac ity. Cre dibility determin ation s, of

c ours e, arenotth e stuff of su mmaryj u dgme nt aff ir mance s. 20 H AY N E S, C i r c ui tJudge, c onc urr i ng and di ss ent i ng: I conc uri n t he m aj o r i t y’ s o pi ni o n s av e a nd e xc e ptSe c t i o n I I I . C. , f rom w hi c h I r es pec t f

ul l y di ss ent . I w oul d hol d thatSt ew ar thas r ai se d a m at er i al facti ssue regardi n g w h et h er Loft i n ’ s con du ctcr eated a hosti l e w ork en vi ronm en ti n 200 6, an d I w ou l d reverse and rem an d on t h at i ssue. A f t er hav i n g been t ran sf erred aw ay f

rom her abu ser in 2 0 0 4 , Stew art t est i f i ed that she w as am azed t o l earn t h at Lo ftin w o u ld aga i n becom e her s u p e r v is o rin 2 0 0 6 . H o p e s p r in g s e te r n a l, a n d p e r h a p s M D O T th o u g h t L o ftin h ad t u rned over a new l eaf
. Su ch hopes w ere al m osti m m edi atel y da shed w h en Lof t i n t o l d St e w ar the “ w as g o i ng t o be i n t he o f f i c e a nd t hat[ t he y] w e r e g o i ng t o be sw eet , an d [ t h ey] w ere goi n g t o ha ve an un derst an di n g. ” Stew artst ated 1 i n her dep osi t i on t h at “ ev e ry t i m e [ t h ey] w ere al on e t ogether” L of t i n i n di cat ed t h at t h ey w ere “ goi n g t o be sw eet” t o each other. A s a r esul t , she al t ered her c o n d u c t t o a v o id h im : “ I n e v e rs ta y e d in m yo ffic e t h e n , I liv e d in t h e b a th r o o m .” T h e d i stri ct cou rt an a l yz ed the se 2 0 0 6 i n ci d en ts a s stan d -al on e con d u ct. It con cl u d ed tha t, view ed i n this i solation , the se inc i d en ts w ere n ot su ff i ci en t t o sup port a cl ai m of

hosti l e w ork en vi ronm en t . I su bm i tt h at i tw as err or t o vi ew t he 2 00 6 c o nduc ti n i s o l at i o n. The m aj o r i t y c o r r e c t l y no t e s t hat t he g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nto n t he da m ages cau sed b y the p re- O ct ober 200 4 cond u ctdoes not er ase t h at c on du ct f rom t h e rec ord. To the contrary, t h e pre- O ct ober 200 4 evi den ce, w h i l e not i ndependent l y ac t i onabl e, i s pro b a ti ve of and pr ovi des c ont extf ort he 2006 eve n ts. “E v i den ce c on cerni n g a cl ai m t h at i s not on t ri al. . . does not a u to m a tic a llylo s e its re le v a n c e o rp r o b a tiv e v a l u e to a cla im th a t r e m a in s .” R u t h erf ord v. Harri s Cou n ty, T ex. , 1 9 7 F .3d 1 7 3 , 1 8 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ).N o. 08- 60747

The majority’s stat em en ta tt heen d of Section II I.C . th at “[t]he test for sexual 2 har assment cannot be met sol elybybols t er in g the employee’s subj ective perception of otherwise b eni gnspeech unaccompanied byany phy sical actionagain st her” shoul d not b e read to su ggest th at phy sical cont act is nece ssary for liability to attach. Physic al cont act is not ar equir ed ele me nt of ahos tilee nviron me nt cl aim . See Far pe lla- Cros by v. Hor izon He al th Care , 97F .3d 8 03 (5thC ir. 1 996) (affirming refu sal to grant j ud gment notwith standingth e ver dictforemp loyerwhereth e o nlyalle gedhara ssm ent wa s verb al) ; Wyerick v. BayouSteel Cor p. , 88 7 F .2d 127 1 (5th Cir. 198 9) (applying Louisiana law similar toTitleVIIan d reversing summaryj udgment on the appellant’s hostil e e nviron mentcl aim where no all egatio ns of phy sical co ntactwerema de); Donaldson v. C DB, I nc. , N o. 08- 60666, 2009 U.S . App . LEXIS 152 59, at *21 (5th Cir. July6, 200 9) (unpubli shed) (“Physic al touchin g is not arequirement inahos tile -work -e nviron me nt cl aim , solon gas th e evidencee st ab li sh esc on ductth at isso severe or perva sive a s to aff ect a term , co n dition , or privilege of empl oyme nt.”) ; J onesv . F la gsh ipI n t 'l , 793 F.2 d 714 , 720 (5th Cir. 198 6) (settin g forth the Fifth Circuit test for hostil e work environme nt clai ms whichrequires aplaintiff to show unwelco me sexualh ara ssment in the form of “sexualadvanc es, reque sts for sexu al favors, and other verbal orphysic al conduct of asexu al n ature”) (em ph a si s a dded); see a lso Harris v. ForkliftSystems, I nc. , 51 0 U .S. 17 , 21-2 3 (1 993 ) (f

in ding ahostil e work environ ment claim canarise abse nt anyphysic al manif es tationof in

j ury); Black mon v. Pinke rton Secu rity&I nvest igat ive Servs. , 18 2 F .3d 6 29, 637(8th Cir. 1 999) (noting th at “sexualharassment th at does not involve physic al cont act [is not] per se le ss seriou s” th an th at involvin gp hy sical co ntact); Indest v. Freem an Deco ra ting, Inc. , 16 8 F .3d 7 95, 803(5th Cir. 1 999) (Wiener, J . concurring) (“True, sexu al comments alo ne can ris e to the leve l of actionabl e haras sm ent. ” (c itin g Harris, 5 1 0U .S . at 2 1 -2 3) ).
21 “ D i s c r i m i nat o r y i nc i de nt s o ut s i de of t he f i l i ng pe r i o d m ayb e r e l e va nt b a ck gr ou n d in form a ti on to cu rren t discri m i n a toryacts.” R am sey v. Hend ers on , 2 8 6 F .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 6 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); seealso Un i t ed A i r Lines, I n c. v. E van s, 431 U . S. 5 53, 558 ( 197 7) (t i m e- barred i n ci den t s “ m ay con st i t u t e r e l e va ntb ac kg r o und e v id e n c e ”). V i ew ed agai n st t h e back drop of w h at S t ew art h ad al read y ex peri en ced f rom L of t i n , L of t i n ’ s 20 06 cond u ctgoes f rom m erel y boori sh to l egall y act i on able. I ndeed, St ew ar t ’ s expe r i enc es w i t h L ofti n i n 2004 and be f or e a r e e xac t l y w hy, w he n Lo f

t i n s t ar t e d a ne w i n 2 00 6 w i t h s i m i l arc o m m e nt s , St e w ar tb e ga n hi di ng i n t h e bathroom t o avoi d an esc al ati on t o ph ysi calcontact an d a recurrence of 2 t h e add i t i on ali n ci den t s t h at oc curred i n 200 4. S t ew artw as cer t ai n l y j u st i f i ed i n concl u di n g t h at Loft i n ha d n ot“ l earn ed hi s l esson” an d t h at t h e 200 6 cond u ct w a s r e m in is c e n to f t h e p r io rw r o n g fu l c o n d u c t . T h is w a s n o tm e r e lyS t e w a r t ’sN o. 08- 60747

22 subj ec t ive per c ept i on butan obj ec t ivel y r eas onabl e c onc l usi on f r om t he 2006 eve nt s i n t he c ont extof w hathad oc c urr ed pr evi ous l y. I n Cort es v. Maxu s Explor ati on Co. , 9 7 7 F . 2 d 1 9 5 , 1 9 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) , we he l d t hati tw as pr o pe r t o c o ns i de r t i m e - ba r r e d ac t s o f har as s m e nt i n a s s e s s i ng t i m el y cl ai m s. W h i l e t h e courtcoul d n otaw a rd d a m a g e s f or t h e t i m e- barred i n ci den t s, “ t h e di st ri ct co u rt p roperl y consi dered evidence of t h e 198 0- 82 fearpro duci ng ac t i ons i n det er m i ni ng w het herthe 1986 a c t i ons am ount ed t o s exual h a r a s sm en t an d con stru ctive disch a rg e.” I d. The s am e i s t r ue he r e. Cons i de r i ng t he 2 00 6 e ve nt s i n l i gh t of w h at we kno w a bo utLo f t i n f r o m t he

“ t ot al i t y of t he c i r c um st ance s, ” I c onc l ude t hatt her e i s a fac ti ss ue o n t he 2006 ho s t i l e w o r k e nvi r o nm e ntc l ai m a nd t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n g r ant i ng s um m ar y j udg m e nto n t hatc l ai m . Acc o r di ngl y, I r e s pe c t f ul l y di s s e ntf

r o m t he m ajo r ity ’ s co n tr a r yh o ld in g .