N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TANISHA M AR IE TATUM ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DAVITA HEALTHC ARE PAR TNER S, INC ., a De la ware C om

pa ny ; SUN C ITY DIALYSIS C ENTER , LLC , DB A Pa lm B rook Da V ita Dia ly sis, a

De la ware lim ite d lia bility c om pa ny , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-15762 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-00185-SPL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste ve n Pa ul Loga n , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2019 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED OCT 30 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : B YB EE a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s, a nd M ENDOZA, *** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla

nt Ta nisha Tatum worke d for just ove r one y e ar at a ppe lle e DaVita He a lthc are Partne rs’ s dia ly sis c linic in Sun C ity , Ariz ona . Tatum ha d se ve ra l inte rpe rsona l c onflic ts with c o -worke rs a nd re signe d shortly

a fte r lodging a

form a l
c om pla i nt with the

hum an-re sourc e s de pa

rtm e n t. She the n

sue d DaVita

and the
c linic (toge the r, “ DaVita ” ), c l a im ing she wa s disc rim i nate d a ga inst ba se d on he r
ra c e and wa s c onstruc tive ly disc ha rge d in re ta lia

tion for he r c om

pla int. The distric t c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in Da

V ita ’ s favor on both of Tatum ’ s c la im s; Ta

t um now a ppe a ls. W e a ffirm
. 1. Tatum a lle ge s tha

t she wa s subje c te d to a

hostilework e nvironm e nt ba se d on he r ra c e . To e sta

blish a prim a fa c ie hostile -work-e nvironm e nt c la im , a pla intiff
m ust show “ (1) the de fe nda n ts subje c te d he r to ve rba l or phy sic a l c onduc t ba se d on he r ra c e ; (2) the c onduc t wa s unwe lc om e ; a n d (3) the c onduc t wa s suffic ie ntly
se ve re or pe rva sive to a lte r the c onditions of he r e m ploy m e nt a nd c re a te an

a busive working e nvironm e nt.” Surre ll v . C al. W a te r Se r v . C o. , 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th C ir. 2008). Ta

tum c om pla ins of se ve ra l inc ide nts she argue s c om bine d to c re a te a hostilework e nvironm e nt. B ut he r c o-worke rs’ c o nduc t, while offe nsive , ge ne ra lly

* * * The Honora

ble Sa lva dor M e ndoz a , Jr., Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. 2fa lls into the “ o ffha nd c om m e nts c a te gory

of non-a c t iona

ble disc rim ination,” Manatt v . Bank

of Am., N A , 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th C i r. 2003) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d), a

nd a ny c onduc t dire c te d at Ta

t um pe rsona lly

wa s not se v e re or pe rva s ive e nough to rise to the le ve l of a busive , se e Faraghe r v . C ity of Boc a Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (noting tha t Title VII is not a

“ ge ne ra l c ivility
c ode ” and tha

t “ s im ple te a sing, offha

nd c om m e nts, a n d isola te d inc ide n ts (unle ss
e xtre m e ly se rious) will not a

m ount to disc rim inat ory

c h an ge s in the te rm s a

n d
c onditions of em

ploy m e nt” ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). Eve n if Ta

tum we re subje c te d to a

hostilework e nvironm e nt, he r c la im still fa ils be c a use the re is no e v ide nc e that Da Vita kne w a bout them istre a tm e nt a

nd fa ile d to ta

ke re m e dia l a c tion. S

e e N ic hols v

. Azte c a Re

st. Ente rs., Inc
. , 256 F.3d 864, 875 (9th C ir. 2001). This is e spe c ia lly true in light of Ta

tum ’ s re signa

tion while DaVita

wa s be ginning its inve stiga t ion into her c om

pla int. 2. To e s ta

blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of re ta lia t ion, Ta tum “ m ust show (1) involve m e nt in a

prote c te d a c tivity , (2) a

n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion, a

nd (3) a
c a usa l link be twe e n the two.” Brook s v . C ity of San Mate o , 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th C ir. 2000). It is undispute d tha t Ta tum e nga ge d in prote c te d c onduc t by re porting
a lle ge dly ra c ist c om

m e nts. B ut Ta

tum ’ s c la im

fa ils a t the se c ond e le m e nt of he r prim a fa c ie c a se . 3B e c a

use Tatum

fa i l e d to show tha

t she wa s subje c t e d to a

hostilework
e nvironm e nt, she c annot “ m e e t the highe r sta nda rd of c onstruc tive disc ha

rge :
c onditions so intole

ra ble tha t a re a sona

ble pe rson would le ave the job.” Id. at 930. Eve n c onside ring the e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to Ta tum , we c annot se e

“ how a re a sona ble trie r of fa c t c ould find tha t she wa s drive n from

the workpla c e .” Id. Tatum

the re fore fa i ls to show tha t she suffe re d

an a dve rse e m

ploy m e n t a c tion. AFFIRM E D.

4