FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UL 14 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1492 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00157 -CV -W DO -5 DONYA MITCHELL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us GENE POPE, i n d i v i du a l l y an do f

f i c i a l l y, MIC HAEL OV ERBEY, i n d i v i du a l l y an do f

f i c i a l l y, BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (J ul y 14 , 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd B IR CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso g ra nte d summa

ry jud g me nt in fa

vo r of De fe nd ants on

Pla int if f’ s c la ims 1 arisingunder 42 U .S.C. § 1985, t he F irst Amendment, the Amer icans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), a nd Geor g ia state law . Plaintiff makes no argument about these c laims on appea l: they are abando n ed
. S ee Gre enbria r, Ltd. v. Cit y

of Alabaste r, 881 F .2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989). 2 PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant D ony a Mi tc he ll, af em al e fo rm er ly

e m plo y ed by the Bu tts Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t a s aD ep uty

S he ri ff a nd I nve sti ga tor , a

ppe al s t h e g r a n to f

s u mm a ry ju d g men ti n f

a v o r o f Ge n e P o p e , S h e r i f

f o f B u t t s C o u n t y, G eo rg ia , a nd M ic ha el O ve rb ey , aMa j or in the Bu tts Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t, in her action alleging sexu al harassm ent, in violation of T itle VI I, 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e-2, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourtee nth Am endm ent, under 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 3
. N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. 1 W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing the facts-- as suppo rted by the evidence in the record- -and rea sonable inferences fr om tho se f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty . Y oung v. Ci ty of P al m Bay , F la
. , 358 F
. 3d 8 59, 860 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4)
. S um m ar y j udgm en t i s pr ope r w he re no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t e xis ts. I d. T itl e V II m ak es it

unl aw fu l f

or a n e m plo y er to “ dis cr im inate a ga ins t any ind ivi dua l w ithr es pe ct

to [h er ] c om

pe nsa tio n, te rm s, c ondi tio ns, or pr ivi le ge s of
em pl oym en t, b ecau se of s uc h i nd iv id ua l’s . . . sex .” 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1)
.We evalu at e Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims tog ether with her Title VI Iclaims. See Ha rdin v. 2 Stinchcomb, 691 F.2d 1364, 1369 n.16 (11th Cir. 1982) (whe n § 1983 used as pa rallel re medy

for Title VI Iviolation, elements of the two c auses of action ar e the same). 3 To prove sexual harassm ent under Title V II, a plaintiff m ust sh ow, am ong o ther t h i n g s , t h a tt h e h a r a s s me n tw a s s u f f i c i e n t l y s e v e r e o r

p e rv a s i v e t o a l t e r

t h e t e rms
an d c ondi tio ns o f em

plo ym en t and c re at e a dis cr im inator ily abusi ve w orkin g
en vi ro nm en t. Hu ls ey

v. Pri de Res ts ., LLC, 367 F.3d 12 38 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

“ Se xua l hara ssm en t i n th e w orkpl ac e can a lte r the te rm s and c ondi tio ns o f
em ploym ent in either of two w ay s.” Id. at 1245
. First, if the plaintiff proves “ that the hara ssm en t c ulm inate d ina‘ tangi ble e m plo ym en t a ct ion ’ a ga ins t he r. ” Co tto n v. Cr ack er Ba rrel OldCo un try Sto re, In c., 43 4 F .3d12 27 , 12 31 (11 1t h C ir. 2 00 6)
. Se co nd, if

the pla int if

f show s ho sti le w ork e nvi ro nm en t hara ssm en t: w he re “ the workplace is perm eated w ith dis crim inatory intim idation , r idicule, and insult, that i s s u ff i ci en t l y s ev er e o r p er v as i v e t o al t ert h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e v i ct i m ’s
em pl oym en t an d c reat e an ab us iv e wor ki ng en vi ro nm en t.” Harris v. Fo rk li ft S y s., Inc. , 114 S. Ct. 367, 370 (199 3) (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted). Pl ai nti ff pr oc ee ds unde r both th eo ri es . S he a rg ue s th at O ve rb ey ’ s a ct s constitu ted actionable host ile work e nvironm ent sexual harassm ent under Title V II and § 198 3. A nd she also con tends that Overbey ’ s acts resulted in her

2
co nstru ct ive dis ch ar ge a nd i n th e al te ratio n of he r j ob d uti es ; sh e, thu s, m ai nta insP l ai n t i ff contends that Ove rbey : (1) tried to kiss her a fter the 1999 Sheriff’ s Depa rtment 3 Christmas party

and ca lled her a

“fr igid bitch” when she ref used, (2) showed up at place s Plainti ff was “ staking out” in Dec ember 1999 and tol d her “y ou must be workingout” and “ y ou sure do look fi ne ,” (3 ) a

pp e are d s e ve ra l ti me s in he r d ri ve wa y in Janu ary 20 00 , o nc e dr unk, wh e n h e tol d Pla int if f’ s so n th at he lov e d Pla int if f, (4 ) su g g e ste d sh e we ar c e rt a in je ans and c omm e nte d “ y our a ss sure doe s look fine,” ( 5) told her “ y ou can just wa lk into the room and I ’d g et an ere ction,” (6) stood on his tipt oes to look down her shirt, ( 7) rubbe d up ag ainst her, whispe red in her ear , and put his arm acr oss her c hest, (8) c hased he r ar ound the CI D offic e, (9) once picked her up over his head in the CI D office , (10) asked her over the Sheriff’ s Depa rtment telephones if she was dress ed o r naked, (11) ope ned the door

to the women’s bathroom and turned the lights off and on whe n Plaintiff was inside, (12) sim ulated “humping” another female employ ee w ith that employ ee’ s consent, (13) made se xua lly de ro g ator

y re mark s and

g e sture s a

bo ut a fe ma le ma g ist

rate jud g e , a

nd (1 4) referr ed to Sheriff Pope a s a “bigear ed penc il dick motherfucke r.” In Marc h 2000, Plaintiff and Over bey attended a confe renc e in A labama. Over bey told Plaintiff that the hotel had made a mistake a nd that the y wo uld have to s ha

re a ro om. Ov e rb e y sle pt on the fl oo r. Th e ne xt night, a ft e r Ov e rb e y g ot h is 4 that she suffered a tangibl e em ploym ent action based on Overbey ’ s sexual hara ssm en t. W e re j ec t P la int if

f’ s ho sti le w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im
. I n ana ly zi ng a hos til e
w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im , w e co nsi de r (1 ) the f re que nc y of the c ondu ct ; ( 2) the
se ve ri ty of the c ondu ct ; ( 3) w he the r the c ondu ct w as phy sic al ly

thr eate nin g or hum iliating , or a m ere offensive utterance; and (4) whether the conduct
unr ea sona

bly int er fe re d w iththe e m

plo y ee ’ s j ob p er fo rm an ce . Me ndoz a v. Borden, I nc., 195 F.3d 1238 , 1246 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). O ve rb ey ’ s c ondu ct

w as not that f re que nt. P la int if

f be gan w orkin g inthe Cr im ina l I nve sti ga tio n D ivi sio n, und er O ve rb ey ’ s su

pe rv isi on, in January

199 8: she r es ign ed

in Jul y 200 2. D ur ing tho se 4 y ears , P la int if f poi nts to 16 s pe ci fi c instances of offensive conduct byOver bey
. O f these instances, m ost inv olved 3own r oo m, h e tr ie d to c onvin c e Pla int if f to g o to the ho te l ho t tu

b w ithhim

and oth e r c onve nti on e e rs . He c alled her

a “f rig id bitch” when she ref used; wh en she c onfronted him the ne x t morning a nd threatened to tell th e S h er i ff if Over bey did not leave the c onfer ence , Over bey crie d, promised he wo uld be “ g oo d, ” and

le ft . A nd Pla int if f e xpla ine d th at, i n Jun e 20 02 , b e fo re sh e wa s sc he du le d to work sec urity

at a pr ivate g olf tournament given by a st rip club owner, Over bey told her and othe r of fi c e rs a bo ut a no the r g olf

tou rn ame nt h os te d b y

thi s o wner whe re str ipp e rs a c te d a s c a dd ie s. Over bey said that the owne r direc ted the stripper s to place g olf balls into their vag inas and to squirt them onto the g ree n. In Mendoza, the allege d hara sser said “I ’m g etting f ired up,” rubbed his hip ag ainst the plaintiff’s 4 hip while touchingher shoulder and smiling, twice made a sniffingsoun d wh ile looking at the plaintiff’s groin area and once s niffing without looking at her gr oin, and constantly following and staringat Mendoza in a “ very o b vious fashion.” See 195 F.3d at 1247. I n Gupta, the a lleg ed hara sser sug g ested lunch at Hooters, said the pla intiff was “ look i n g v er y b eautiful,” called he r at home, unbuckled his pa

nts and tucked in his shirt in front of her , stared at her twice , touched he r ring and kept a sking he r to lunch, plac ed his hand on her knee, a nd touched the he m of her dr ess. See 212 F.3d at 584-86. 5 “ of fe nsi ve utt er an ce s. ” O nly thr ee ti m es did

O ve rb ey tou chhe r or

a tte m pt t o tou chhe r: w he n he tr ie d to kis s he r, w he n he li ft ed he r ove r his he ad , a nd whe n he rubbed up against her and reac hed across her chest. A nd Plaintiff did no t assert t h at s h e f el tt h re at en ed b y Ov erb ey’s co n du ct . In ad d i t i o n , m u ch o f O v erb ey’s
co n du ct i n v o l v ed h o rs ep l ay; an ds o m e w as n o ts ex -b as ed . Al t h o u g h Ov erb ey’s reprehensible behavior onlycan be descr ibed as crass and j uvenile, w e acc ept that this behavi or--given its relative infrequency --is not the kind of “ severe” hara ssm en t ne ce ssary

f or li ab ili ty to atta chund er

T itl e V II
. O ve rb ey ’ s c ondu ct is
m or e co m

para ble to the c ondu ct

in G upt a v. F lor ida

Bd
. of Re ge nts , 212 F
. 3d 5 71, 584-86 (11th Cir. 2000), and in Mendo za, 195 F.3d at 1247, which w e concluded
wa s n o to b

je ct i v el y s ev er e o r p er v as i v e. An dn o ev i d en ce ex i s t s t h at Ov erb ey’s 4We a ff ir m th e g ra nt o f s ummary

jud g me nt o n Pl a int if

f’ s h os til e wo rk

e nv ir onme nt c la ims , s o 5 we ne e d n ot a dd

re ss P la int if

f’ s ar g ume nts that Sher if

f Pop e and Ov e rb e y

(1 ) f a ile d to satis fy

the ir burden on the aff

irmative def

ense to li ability under Far ag her v. City of B oca Raton, 118 S.C t. 2275 (1 99 8) , a nd B ur lin g ton

Ind us ., Inc . v . E lle rt

h, 11 8 S. Ct. 22 57 (1 99 8), and (2) we re e nti tle d to El e ve nth Am e ndme nt i mmunit

y and qu a lif ie d immun ity

on Pla int if f’ s § 19 83 c la ims
. 6 be ha vio r unr ea sona

bly int er fe re d w ithP la int if

f’ s j ob p er fo rm an ce . T o th e
co ntr ar y , the e vid en ce ind ic at es that P la int if f’ s he al th p ro ble m s w er e the gr eate st hin dr an ce to he r j ob p er fo rm an ce a nd l ed to he r ult im at e co nf

ro ntatio n w ithP ope
an d he r subs eque nt r es ign at ion
. I n sh ort, P la int if f ha s no t sh ow n ac la im

of actionable host ile work e nvironm ent under Title V II. 5 A nd w e re

j ec t P la int if

f’ s c la im that O ve rb ey ’ s be ha vio r cu lm inate d ina tangi ble e m

plo ym en t a ct ion
. P la int if f as se rt s th at

she c hange d he r w ork sc he dul e
s ev er al t i m es t o av o i dOv erb ey, t h at s h e h ad h erd es km o v ed t o av o i dOv erb ey’s stare s, that O ve rb ey

f or ba de he r fr om

usi ng a spare of fi ce f or he r pol y gr ap h equip m en t, a nd tha t O ve rb ey ga ve he r tw o a ssi gnm en ts n orm al ly not giv ento a CID o ffi cer. Th es e th in gs do no t ri se to th e le ve l o f ta ng ib le em pl oym en t ac ti on s. See Cotton, 434 F.3d at 1231 (stating that tangi ble em ploym ent action “ constitu tes
a sig nif ic an t c hange in em

plo ym en t st at

us, suc h a s hi ri ng, f

ir ing , f ai lin g to pr om ote , r ea ssi gnm en t w ithsig nif ic an tly dif fe re nt r es pons ibi lit ie s, or ade ci sio n
cau si ng a si gn ifi can t ch an ge in be ne fit s” ).7

Pl ai nti ff a lso poi nts to he r re sig na tio n, whic h sh e cl ai m s w as ac onstru ct ive dis ch ar ge , a nd, thu s, atangi ble e m plo ym en t a ct ion
. W e doub t tha t P la int if f co uld show that her w orking env ironm ent was so intolerable that resignation was appropriate wher e she has failed to dem onstrate that Overbey ’ s behavior was
se ve re or pe rv as ive e noug h to a lte r he r w ork c ondi tio ns. S ee P en nsy lvania S ta te Police v. Suders, 124 S.Ct. 2342 , 2347 (2004) (to establis h constructiv e discharge, pla int if f m ust sho wthat the abusi ve w orkin g e nvi ro nm en t be cam e so i nto le ra ble that her resignation qu alified as a f itting response). In addition , a lthou gh Plaintiff b el i ev ed t h at Sh er i ff

Po p e w o u l dn o tb e r ec ep t i v e t o co m p l ai n t s ab o u tOv erb ey’s be ha vio r, P la int if

f did not pr ovi de S he ri ff

P ope a n op portun ity

to re m edy

the situatio n: she never form ally com plained in writing abou t Over bey and never
co m pl ai ne d o ral ly to Sh eri ff Po pe . See Kil go re v . Tho m ps on & Bro ckMg m

t., In c. , 93 F
. 3d 7 52, 754 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ( co nstru ct ive dis ch ar ge ge ne ra lly not viable if em

ploy er not given sufficient tim e to rem edy the situation ). A nd P la int if

f’ s c onstru ct ive dis ch ar ge c la im f ai ls b ec au se she f

ai le d to dem onstrate a causal link betwee n her resignation and th e alleged hara ssm ent. S ee Cotton, 434 F.3d at 1231
. Plaintiff re signed after Sher iff P ope war ned her that she w oul d be sus pe nde d or te rm inate d if

she too k m or e le av e af

te r re tur nin g f ro m Fam ily a nd M ed ic al L eave A ct

( “ FM L A ”) le av e. P la int if f state d inhe r de posi tio nThe Consolidated O mnibus B udg et Reconc iliation Act of 1985 (“COB RA”) g ives worke rs who 6 lose their health benef

its the rig ht to c hoose to continue he alth benef its provided by

their hea lth plan for a limit ed time under

cer tain circ umstances. See 29 U.S.C. § 1161.

8 “ I re signed th e last day

of m y FML A, in order to keep m y CO BRA coverage. ”

6 The reco rdde m on st rat es th atPla in ti ff res ig ne d d ue to he r he al th pro bl em s, a dis put e ove r he r le av e tim e, a nd the c onc er n th at she w oul d lo se he r ins ur an ce if t er m i n at ed , n o tb ec au s e o f O v erb ey’s b eh av i o r. We, t h u s , r ej ec tPl ai n t i ff ’s
c o n s t r u c t i v e d i s c h a r g e c l a i m. Insum , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of D ef en dants . AFFIR MED.