T he H onor abl e B obbyR
. B al dock, U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he * T e n th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .

NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CA T I ON

F i l e N am e: 06a0919n. 06 F i l ed: D ece m ber 20, 2006 N o. 05- 6051 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT J UNE BA UGHAM, S AR AH, ) DE RR I CK , RI T A YOUN G, ) PHY LLI S LEE , ) ) P l a i n t i ffs - Ap p e l l a n t s , ) ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE ) UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT v . ) CO UR T FOR TH E M I DD LE ) DI STRI CT O F TENNESSEE ) BATT ERE D W OM EN, I NC; ) B A T T E R E D W O M E N , IN C ., ) d /b /a A V A L O N C E N T E R , IN C ., ) OP I NI ON SH A R O N M O O R E , and ) PATTY B OA RD W I NE, ) ) D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ) _______________________________) B E F O R E : C L A Y , S IL E R , an d B A L D O C K , C i rcu i t Jud ges. * B A L D O C K , C i rcui t Judge. P lain tiffs J u n e B a u g h a m , S a ra h D e rric k , R ita Y oung, and Phy l l i s L ee ( col l ect i vel y “Pl ai nt i ffs ”) ar e form erand pr es entempl oy ees of D efe ndantB at t er ed W om en, I nc. , d/b/ a/A val o n C ent er , I nc. ( her ei naft er “A val on”)
. T heyappea l t he di s t r i ctcou rt ’s entryof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A v a lo n o n th e ir c laim s fo r h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t sa m e -se x h a ra ss m e n t,M id d le D istric t o f T e n n e ss e e L o c a l R u le 5 6 .0 1 re q u ire s a p lain tiff to 1 s ubm i ta r es pons e t o a defendant ’ s s t at ementof undi s put ed mat er i al fac t s ei ther a d m itt in g o r d e n y in g th o se fa c ts. W h e re a p lain tiff d isp u tes a fa c t b yd e n y in g it, th e p lain tiff

m u st s u p p o rt th e d e n ial w ith “ sp e c ific c itatio n to th e re c o rd .” In th is cas e, Pl ai nt i ffs oppos ed A val on’ s s t at ementof undi s put ed fa ct s w i th gener al d e n ia ls a n d w ith o u t c ita tio n to th e re c o rd . T h is fa lls s h o rt o f th e ru le ’s m a n d a te s . I n addi t i on, Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r es pons e w as fi l ed tw enty - day s l at e and w i thoutl eave of th e c o u rt . 2 c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e , an d re talia tio n b ro u g h t u n d e r T itle V I I o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A ctof 1964, 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000e ets eq . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1291, and affi r m i n par t , vaca t e i n p art, an d remand i n partforfur t her
cons i der at i on. I. In th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t co n tex t, w e o rd in a r il y s tate th e fa c ts o f th e c a se in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . See Tys i ngerv. P ol i ce D ept . of C ity o f Za n e sv ill e , 463 F. 3d 569, 572 ( 6th C i r . 2006)
. I n th is c ase , h ow ever , t he di s t r i ctcourtacc ept ed as t rue A val o n ’s s t at ementof undi s put ed mat er i al fac t s aft er th e P la in tiffs fa ile d to p ro p e rl y o p p o s e th o s e fa c ts . See M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Tennes s ee L o c a l R u le 5 6 .0 1
. P lain tiffs’ fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e d istric t c o u rt’s lo c a l r u le 1
re su lted in a m o re d e fe n d a n t-f rie n d lyv e rsio n o f

th e fa c ts. W e se t fo rth th e fa c ts
w hi ch t h e di s t r i ctcour tacc ept ed. W e vi ew otherfac t s fr om t he r ecor d i n the l i ght
m os tfavor abl e t o Pl ai nt i ffs unl es s theyar e i ncon sist en tw i th the fa ct s A val on3

p re s e n te d
. See , e. g. , Hooverv. C oca- C ol a C o. , 2 5 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 2 n . 1 ( M
. D. T e n n . 2 0 0 3 ). A va l on i s a no n- pr of i tor ga ni z a t i on t ha tpr ov i de s , a mong o the rt hings,
couns el i ng, cour tadvoca cy , and s hel t erforvi ct i m s orw i tnes s es of dom es t i c or sexual vi olence i n C um berl and C ou nty , T enn essee, as w el l as surround i ng cou nti es. A val on’ s m ai n offi ce i s i n C r os s vi l l e, T ennes s ee. I n addi t i on, A val on has an off i ce in D a yto n , T e n n e ss e e . D u rin g th e tim e re lev a n t to th is c a se , S h a ro n M o o re a n d P a tty B oar dw i ne w er e i nvol ved i n a r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p. M oor e w as A val on’ s E xecut i ve D i rect o r, an d as such , res po nsi ble for overs eei ng the d ay -t o-dayop erat i on s, p ro g ra m s, a n d f

u n d ra isin g o f

A v a lo n . M o o re w o rk e d in th e C ro ss v ill e o ffice . P a tty B oar dw i ne w as A val on’ s Pr ogr am D i r ect or . H er r es pons i bi l i t i es i ncl uded over s eei ng A valon’s sexual ass aultprogram , i nclud i ng trai ning of personn el and vo l un t eers . She t oo w or ked i n t he C r os s vi l l e off i ce. M oor e s upervi s ed B oar dw i ne, D err i ck, Y ou ng , and B aug ham
. B oardw i ne did n ot hav e supervi sory authori ty ov er Pl ai nti ffs. D err i ck w or ked for A val on fr om appr oxi m at el y 1993 unt i l herr es i gnat i on on Jan u ary2 1 , 2 0 0 3
. A t th e ti m e o f h er resig n ati o n , D errick w o rk ed as A v alon ’s S erv ice C oor di nat ori n t he C r os s vi l l e off i ce. Y oung w or ked as A val on’ s A IM C oor di nat orfr om 1998 unt i l s he r es i gned on February 9, 2003. Y oung w or ked thr ee d a y s a w e e k , o n l yo n e o f w h i c h s h e s p e n ti n th e C r o s s v i l l e o ffi c e . T h e o th e rt wo day s , Y o u n g w o rke d i n t he courtbui l di ng. A tthe t i m e thi s appea l w as t aken,4

B augham and L ee r emai ned emp loy ed w ith A val on. B augham w or ks forA val on as a Pr ogr am C oor di nat or i n t he D ayt on offi ce. L ee w or ks as a V i ct i m A dvocat e i n t he D a yto n o ffic e . B a u g h a m is L e e ’s d ir e c t s u p e rv is o r. A val on has a pol i cypr ohi bi t i ng har as s m ent , di s cr i m i nat i on, and r et al i at i on. I f an e m pl oy ee w i s hes t o r epor tdi s crim inat oryconduct , the empl oy ee mayfi l e a gri evan ce. A ccordi ng t o A valon’s po l i cy , A valon’s E xecu t i ve D i rect or fi rs t
cons i der s and i nves t i gat es t he gr i evanc e. I f the Execut i ve D i r ect o rcannotr es ol ve t he g ri evan ce, i ti s r efe rre d to t he P ers on nel C om m i t t ee of the B oard of

D i rect ors. T he Per s onnel C om m i t t ee r evi ew s the gr i evanc e and conduct s an i nves t i gat i on. T he d e c is io n o f

th e P e rs o n n e l C o m m itte e is fin a l. O n D ece m ber 9, 2002, Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a gr i evanc e al l egi ng theyw er e s ubj ect ed to B o ard w ine’s o ffen sive co n d u ct an d lang u ag e. D esp it e find ing B o ard w ine’s b eh av ior i n ap p rop ri ate a n d sex u all yh ara ssing , P lai n ti ffs n ev er c o m p lai n ed to M o o re pr i ort o fi l i ng t hei rgr i evance . B ec aus e M oor e fe l ti m pl i cat ed, s he s ubm i t t ed P lai n ti ffs’ griev an ce to M ark W h it e, ch airm an o f th e P erso n n el C o m m itte e. M ark W hit e m et w i t h P l ai nti ffs, M oo re, and B oardw i ne o n D ecem ber 17, 2002 , t o d i scuss Pl ai nt i ffs ’ gr i evanc e. Pl aintiffs rej ect ed W hi t e’ s pr opos ed r es ol ut i on, s o t he gr i evanc e w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he f u l l Per s onnel C om m i t t ee. A val on’ s Per s onnel C o m m itte e c o n d u c ted a h e a rin g . P lain tiffs c o n c e d e d th e yh a d a f u ll o p p o rtu n ityto pr es ent the i revi dence of har as s m entt o the Per s onnel C om m i t t ee. O n J anuary14,5

2 0 0 3 , the P e rso n n e l C o m m itt e e iss u e d a w ritten d e ter m in a tio n fin d in g B o a rd w in e d id notvi ol at e A val on’ s ant i
- har as s m entpol i cy . N everthel es s , t he Per s onnel C om m i t t ee
r ecomm ended t he s t aff par t i ci pat e i n ant i
- har as s m ent tr ai ni ng. Si nce th e g r i evanc e
w as fi l ed, nei t her B augham norL ee, t he tw o Pl ai nt i ffs w ho di d notr es i gn fol l ow i ng th e in v e stig a tio n , h a s o b se rv e d B o a rd w in e e n g a g e in a n yc o n d u c t th e yw o u ld
cons i der i nappr opr i at e or s exual l y har as s i ng. A nd i n fac t , they have had m inimal cont actw i t h B oar dw i ne s i nce Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed the gr i evanc e. Shor t l yaft erA val on ’s P ersonne l C om m i t t ee i s s ued i t s deci s i on, D err i ck and Y oung r es i gned fr om A val on. D err i ck re s i gned “[d] ue t o the r efus al of the Per s onnel C o m m itte e to a c t to sto p th e c o n tin u a l se x u a l co m m e n ts a n d in n u e n d o s a n d h o stile
w or k envi r onm enti n t he w or kpl ace [. ] ” D err i ck, h ow ever , di d notobs erve B oar dw i ne enga ge i n anyconducts he cons i der ed s exual l yhar as s i ng aft er t he Per s onnel C om m i t t ee i s s ued i ts deci s i on. A ft ert he C om m i t t ee i s s ued i t s deci s i on, butbefor e herr es i gnat i on, Y oung appl i ed forand r ece i ved the pos i t i on of Execut i ve D i rec t oratt he V i ct i m O ffe nderR econc i l i at i on Pr ogr am C om m uni tyM edi at i on C ent er . O n February9, 2003, Y oung s ubm it ted herl et t erof r es i gnat i on t o M oor e. In her l et t er, Y ou ng exp l ai ned the r easons for her res i gn at i on w ere du e to

“ p h ilo s o p h ic a l d iffe re n c e s ” a n d “ is o la tio n in h o ld in g a b u s iv e m e n a c c o u n ta b le .” Y oung gave thi r t y - day s not i ce. H ow ever , on February27, 2003 , Y oung s ubm i t t ed
a s econd l ett er of

r es i gnat i on effect i ve i m m edi at el y , due t o herbel i ef M oor e hadP la in tiffs h a v e n o t a p p e a le d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f th e s e c la im s . 2 6 r et al i at ed aga i ns ther b y tel li n g co- w or ker s thatY oung had fi l ed the har as s m ent gr i evanc e bec aus e M oor e had c aughtheri n a l i e. D i s s at i s fi ed w i t h t he out come of t he Per s onnel C om m i t t ee’ s i nves t i gat i on, P lain tiffs filed su it a g a in st A v a lo n , M o o re , an d B o a rd w in e a lleg in g c laim s fo r h o stile
w or k envi r onm ents ame- sex sexual har as s m ent , cons truct i ve di s char ge, and
r et al i at i on under T i t l e V I I , 42 U
. S. C
. § 2 0 0 0 e ets eq .; th e T e n n e ss e e H u m a n R ig h ts A c t ( T H R A ), T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 -2 1 -1 0 1 , ets eq .; a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 (3 ), a fe d era l st atute p roh ibit ing co n sp irac ies t o v iolate civil ri g h ts. T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m Pl ai nt i ffs ’ § 1985( 3) cons pi r acycl ai m and T H R A cl aim , as w el l as Pl ai nt i ffs ’ T i t l e V I I cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndant s M oor e and B oar dw i ne. See Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6)
. T her eaf t er , the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed 2
sum m ary j udgm ent t o A val on on Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r emai ni ng cl ai m s for hos t i le w o rk envi r onm ents ame- s ex s exual har as s m ent , cons truct i ve di s char ge, and r et al i at i on
un d e r Ti t l e VI I
. Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d : ( 1 ) Pl a i n t i ffs fa i l e d t o pr es ent
s uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e cl ai m of hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent
s ame- s ex s exual har as s m ent , ( 2) D err ick an d Y oung’ s cl ai m forcons truct i ve di s char ged fa i l ed bec aus e the w or k envi r onm entw as nots uffi ci ent l y unbear abl e that
a re aso n ab le pe rson w o u ld fee l com p ell ed to resign , an d (3) B au g h am an d L ee ’s
r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m fa i l e d b e c a u s e th e yd i d n o ts u ffe ra n a d v e r s e e mpl o yme n ta c t i on7

aft erfi l i ng t he gr i evanc e. P lai n t i ffs fi l ed a mot i on forpos t -j udgm entr el i ef. T he di s t r i ctcourts um m ar i l ydeni ed the mot i on, and Pl ai nt i ffs appea l ed. II. O ur s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s a fa mi l i a r o n e . W e r e v i e w th e d i s tr i c t c o ur t or der g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . See Tys i nger , 4 6 3 F
. 3 d at 57 2
. S u m m ary j udgm enti s pr oper“i f the pl eadi ngs , depo sit ion s, ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogether w i t h the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i ssue as t o any m at eri al fact and that the m ov i ng party i s enti t l ed t o a j ud gm ent as a
m at t erof l aw . ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 56( c)
. T o over come summ aryj udgm ent , t he
nonm ovi ng par t y“mustr ebuts uch a s how i ng bypr es enti n g suffi ci entevi dence on
w h ic h a j u r y c o u l d re a s o n a b ly f in d ” in its fa v o r. C lark v. Uni t ed Parce lSer vi ce, Inc. , 4 0 0 F
. 3 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 7 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ) A. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ hos t i l e w ork envi r onm entcl ai m focus es on B oar dw i ne’ s us e of offe ns i ve l anguage and o ffen si ve beha vi ori n and out s i de the w or kpl ace . T he al l eged l yha r a s s i ng be ha vi ort oo k p l a c e ov e ra pe r i od of a pp r ox i mat e l ythr e e y e ars . W e s etfor t h eac h Pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i o n s of s exual har as s m entcons i der ed byt he d is tr ic t c o u rt in g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. 1.8

D e rric k m a k e s th e fo llo w in g a lleg a tio n s o f se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t: A c c o rd in g to D err i ck, on one occ as i on s he w as havi ng a conver s at i on w i th M oor e and Boar dw i ne
w h en B o ard w ine b eg an “c are ssing [M o o re] an d str o k ing h er h air” an d tel li n g M o o re “s he was t h e l o v e o f h e r l i fe . ” Derr i c k th o u g h t Boa r d wi n e “ was j u s t try i n g t o s how [her ] t hati tdi dn’ tr eal l ym at t erw hat[s he] thought
. ” O n an o ther occa s i on, s he obs erved B oar dw i ne bl ow in M o o re’s ear . D err i ck w as “the cont ai nerfora l otof
c o m p lain ts” a b o u t B o a rd w in e . O n o n e o c c a sio n , a c o -w o rk e r c a m e u p to h e r a n d to ld her“s he w as go ing to h ave a nervous br eakdow n beca us e s he fe l tcaughti n t he
m i ddl e of [ M oor e and Boar dw i ne’ s ] ” r el at ion sh i p, beca us e ac cor di ng t o the cow or ker“[t ] hey ’ r e ei t herfi ght i ng orfucki n g al l the t i m e. ” O n anotherocca s i on,
a n o th e r c o -w o rk e r c a lle d D e rr ic k to te ll h e r B o a rd w in e “ h a d ju s t c u s s e d h e r o u t.” W h en D errick a sk ed the c o -w o rke r w h at ha p p en ed , “sh e sa id tha t [B o ard w ine] h ad n ’t got t en a mes s age thats he fe l tl i ke s he s houl d have got ten and so s he cur s ed and y e lle d ” a t th e c o -w o rk e r. B oar dw i ne’ s behavi or al s o m ade i t di ffi cul t for D err i ck t o di s ci pl i ne her
s ubor di nat es w hen theyt oo act ed unpr ofes s i onal l y . Forexamp le , w hen D err i ck
w oul d t al k t o Ev e Bowma n , o n e o f h e rs u b o r d i n a t e s , a b o u th e ru n p r o fe s s i o n al behavi or , E ve w oul d defe nd hercond u ct bycompar i ng her s el f t o B oar dw i ne. D err i ck bel i eves B oar dw i ne’ s behavi orcr eat ed a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent . For exampl e, D err i ck r emem ber ed thaton one occ as i on, B oar dw i ne beca m e vi s i bl yups et9

and bega n “s t om pi ng t hrou g h t he off i ce t al ki ng aboutw hata goddam daycar e that
s he w as runni ng” bec aus e an e m pl oy ee c all ed in s i ck. D err i ck once w i tnes s ed B oar dw i ne “rubbi ng” hergeni t al ar ea a nd “maki ng comm ent s ” af t erB oar dw i ne
acc i d e n t l y s p i l l e d a d r i n k o n h e r s e l f
. Derr i c k , h o wev e r , c o u l d n o t r e m ember t he
c o m m e n ts . 2. Y oung m akes t he fol l ow i ng al l egat i ons of s exual har as s m ent : O n one occ as i on, Y oung bum ped i nt o a co- w or kerand B oar dw i ne “i nhal ed dee pl yand l eane d back a nd sai d s om ethi ng abouts he ei t herw ant ed s om e pus s yorhad t o gets om e pus s y [.]” O nce Y oung obs erved B oar dw i ne “ber at i ng” a co- w or ker w ho w as unl oadi ng a truck, and maki ng com m en ts a b o uthow s he w as “s w eat i ng l i ke a hog ors w eat i ng l i ke a
m an. ” O n another occa s i on, B oar dw i ne m ade a comm entt o Y oung abouthow a cow or ker ’ s er gonom i c mouse pa d had a “ har d- on” and how B o ard w i ne’ s pen had “ej acul at ed all o v er” herw hen i tl eake d i nk. O nce M oor e and Boar dw i ne had a “s cr eam fes t ” w hi ch “t err i fi ed” Y oung. Y oung found offens i ve B oar dw ine’s
r efe r ence t o a part i cul arj udge as a “l im p d ick.” A nd B oar dw i ne w oul d us e “the F
w or d” and c ur s e a lot a s w el l as “s t or m [] ar ound the off i ce” w hi ch i nt i m i dat ed Y oung. O n one occa s i on, B oar dw i ne pl ay ed a pr ank on a co- w or ker that“di s turbed [ Y o u n g ] s o b a d [ ly] [ s h e ] c o u ld n ’t g o b a c k to th e o ffic e ” th a t a f te rn o o n . 3.10

Ba u g h a m m a k e s t h e fo l l o wi n g a l l e g a t i o n s o f s e x u a l h a r a s s me n t : On B au g h a m ’s 3 8 th b irthd ay , M o o re a n d B o ard w ine c am e to B au g h am ’s ho u se fo r a pool par t y . A tt he t i m e, B oar dw i ne w as notan A val on empl oy ee. T he thr ee w ent sk inn y -dip p ing , an d M o o re an d B o ard w ine “k ep t k issi n g an d fo n d li n g ea ch o ther[
. ]” T hi s m ade Baugham uncomfort abl e. T hat s ame day , M oor e aske d B augham w hats he t houghtabouthi r i ng B oar dw ine. B augham cons i der ed M oor e’ s ques t i on as har as s i ng. O n one occ as i on, M oor e, B oar dw i ne, B augham, and Lee w entt o a
r es t aur ant aft er w or k t o have dr i nks
. A s B augham a nd L ee w er e l eavi ng, B oar dw i ne
s t o o d b ya l a r g e g l a s s wi n d o w an d g r a b b e d h e rg e n i t a l s . Ba u g h a m bel i eves B oar dw i ne gr abbed he rgeni t al s t o be “c rude an d v u lgar” beca us e thati s “j us tt he
w ay[B oardw ine ] w oul d acti n publ i c a l otand i n pr i vat e. ” O n anotherocca s i on at the s am e re stau ran t, B o ard w ine “ w as li ck ing ev ery o n e a t th e tab le” a n d then M o o re “l i cked he rback a nd t heyw er e l i cki ng eac h other
. ” B augham once s aw M oor e a n d B o ardw i ne “maki ng outi n fr ontof the C hr i s t m as t r ee” att he off i ce. B augham sa i d s om ethi ng l i ke “G eta roo m , orY ou guy s s t op t hat [, ] ” bec aus e s he fe l t“ver y u n com for t abl e[. ] ” B utw hen theydi d not
s t o p , s h e le f

t th e ro o m . B o a rd w in e “ a lw a y s m a d e c o m m e n ts a b o u t h e r p u s s y” cl ai m i ng i tw as her“ca t . ” O ne t i m e af t era meet i ng, B o ardw i ne “s pr ead he rl egs open and drug [s i c] her hands up t o her[geni t al s ] and s ai d, I gott o go hom e and gi ve
m ypus s ys om e medi ci ne[. ] ” O n a num b er of occa s i ons , M oor e and Boar dw i ne11

w o u ld tell a jo k e a b o u t “S a llyW h isk e y ,” a “ les b ian f ro n tier w o m a n ,” a n d if y o u d id
n o t “ p a r ti c ip a te” B o a rd w in e w o u ld “ g e t v e ryu g ly ” a n d w o u ld “ sa yv e ryu g ly
comm en t s t o y o u a n d a b o u t y o u . ” Boa r d wi n e t a l k e d a b o u t h e r a n d M o o r e s h a r i n g a y eas t i nfec t i on and how t hey w er e pas s i ng i t back and for th. L as t l y , B au gham
c o m p lain s s h e w a s s u bjec ted to listen to B o a rd w in e ’s sto rie s ab o u t h e r se x life w ith M o o re . 4. L e e m a k e s th e fo llo w in g a lleg a ti o n s o f se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t: B o a rd w in e w o u ld get“r eal l ycl os e” t o M oor e. O nce , she obs erved B oar dw i ne w al k up t o M oor e and putherbr eas ton M o o re’s h ead. B oar dw i ne’ s conduct“s hocked he r ” bec aus e s he “d idn ’tthink that that sh o u ld b e g o ing o n ” at w o rk. L ee b eli ev es B o ard w ine’s b e h a v io r w a s h a ra ss in g . L e e re p o rte d th e in c id e n t to B a u g h a m , b u t d o e s n o t re c a ll i f B augham di d anyt hi ng about i t . O nce s he overhear d B oar dw i ne tell ing a cow or kert hather pen had “ej acul at ed al l overherhand. ” O nce Boar dw i ne comm ent ed t o hert hat“herfavor i t e pos i t i on w as fac e dow n[. ]” O nce a ta s t aff m eet i ng, B o a rd w in e sa id sh e w a s n o t w e a rin g a b ra a n d “ sh e ru b b e d h e r h a n d s o v e r he r b re a sts unt i l herni ppl es gothar d and she w as bounci ng them ar ound and t al ki ng t o them and lo o k in g a t m e a n d a n yb o d ye lse th a t w o u ld p a ya tten tio n to h e r.” L e e c o m p lain e d to B augham. A ft era meet i ng L ee obs erved B oar dw i ne rub hergeni t al s and s ay“s he had t o g ive herpus s ys om e medi ci ne. ” Lee al s o obs erved B oar dw i ne s t and att he12

w i ndow of t he r es t aur antgr abbi ng hergeni t al s and “movi ng i tup and dow n” as L ee
a n d Ba u g h a m w e r e l e a v i n g . L e e h e a r d Bo a r d wi n e c a l l a p a r t i c u l a ri n d i v i d u a l o n t wo
ort hr ee oc cas i ons a “l i m p di ck. ” A nd on one occ as i on s he comm ent ed that“maybe

. . . i f s he gave h im a b low job he w oul d change hi s m i nd. ” Lee hea r d ot her
e m p lo y e e s u s e p ro fa n ity in th e o ffic e , in c lu d in g B a u g h a m . B. Pl ai n ti ffs ar gue the di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n fi ndi ng Pl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence di d not
cr eat e a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o thei rcl ai m forhos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent
sa m e -se x h a ra ss m e n t. T itl e V I I m a k e s it u n law f u l fo r a n e m p lo y e r to d isc rim in a te agai ns tan empl oy ee w i t h r es pectt o h er “compensa t i on, t erm s , condi t i ons , or p ri v il eg es o f e m p loym en t, b ec au se o f . .
. sex . ” 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 2 0 0 0 e-2 (a)(1). D i s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on s ex thatcr eat es a hos t i l e orabus i ve w or ki ng envi r onm ent
v io la te s T itle V II
. See C l ark , 4 0 0 F .3 d a t 3 4 7 ; acco rd Har r is v. Forkl i f t Sys
. , Inc. , 510 U
. S. 17, 21 ( 1993) ( not i ng di s cr i m i nat i on “bec aus e of AAA s ex ” i ncludes

“ r e q u i r i n g p e o p l e t o wor k i n a d i s c r i mi n a t o r i l y h o s t i l e o r a b u s i v e e n v i r o n me n t ” )
. To
es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e cl ai m for hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent s ame- s ex har as s m ent , an empl oy ee m us tes t abl i s h ( 1) s he i s a mem berof a pr ot ect ed cl as s , ( 2) s he w as
s ubj ect ed t o unw el come s exual har as s m ent , ( 3) the har as s m ent w as bas ed on hers ex, ( 4) t he h ara ssm ent cr eat ed a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent , and ( 5) the empl oy erfai l ed13

to ta k e re a s o n a b le s te p s to p re v e n t an d c o rr e c t a n ys e x u a lly h a ra s s in g b e h a v io r. See B ow m an v. Shaw nee Stat e Uni v. , 2 2 0 F .3 d 4 5 6 , 4 6 2 -6 3 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Pl ai nt i ffs m us tover come a hi gh thr es hol d t o demonstr at e ac t i onabl e harm , for

“ c o m p lain ts a ttac k in g th e o rd in a rytrib u latio n s o f th e w o rk p lac e , su c h a s th e sp o ra d ic
u se o f a b u sive lang u ag e, ge n d er-re la te d jok es, an d o cc asio n al t ea sing ” a re in s u ffic ie n t t o o b ta in re lie f u n d e r T itle V II
. Far agherv. C i t y of B oca Rat on , 524 U
. S. 775, 788 ( 1998) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed)
. A s w i th al l har as s m ent , s ame- s ex h a ra s s m e n t m u s t b e “ b e c a u s e o f s e x ” to b e a c tio n a b le u n d e r T itle V II
. S e e O n c a le
v. Sund o w n er O

ff sh or e Ser vs . , Inc. , 52 3 U
. S
. 75 , 80 (1998 ). In ot her w ords, P lain tiffs m u st s h o w th a t bu tf orthe i rge nd er they w oul d nothave be en har as s ed. See Wi l l i am s v. G ener alMot ors C or p. , 18 7 F
. 3d 53 3, 56 5 (6t h C i r. 19 99 ). T hu s,

“‘ [i ] f the natur e of a n empl oy ee’ s envi r onm ent , how ever unpl eas ant , i s notdue t o her gender , s he has notbeen the vi ct i m of s ex di s cr i m i nat i on as a re s ul tof that envi r onm ent . ’ ” D i ck v
. P hone D i r ector i es C ompany, Inc. , 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 3 (1 0 th C i r . 20 0 5 ) (qu o ti ng Stahlv. Sun Mi cr osys t em s , Inc. , 1 9 F
. 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 8 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ))
. Note v e r ys e x u a l l yh o s t i l e wor k e n v i r o n me n t , h o wev e r , i s a c t i o n a b l e u nder T i t l e V I I
. T o fal l w i t hi n t he purvi ew of Ti t l e V I I , the w or kpl ace m us t be “pe r m eat ed
w i t h di s cr i m i nat or yi nt i m i dat i on, r i di cul e, and ins ul tt hati s s uffi ci ent l ys ever e or pervas i ve t o al t er the condi t i ons of the vi ct i m ’ s empl oym entand cr eat e an a bus i veIn c o n tra st, w h e n th e h a ra ss m e n t is b ya su p e rv iso r, th e d e fe n d a n t is h e ld 3 s tr ic tly lia b le
. See C l ark , 400 F. 3d at348 ( fi ndi ng U PS “aut om at i cal l yl i abl e for (c o n tin u e d ...) 14 w or ki ng envi r onm ent . ” Ha rr is , 510 U
. S. at21 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons
om i t t ed)
. W e eva l uat e the s ever i tyof the har as s m entfr om the p ersp ect i ve of a
r eas onabl e per s on i n t he empl oy ee’ s s ho es, consi der i ng the t ot al i tyof the
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See O n c a le , 5 2 3 U. S. a t8 1 ( c i t i ng Ha rr is , 5 1 0 U
. S
. at 23 ). A p p rop ri ate fac tors fo r co n side rati o n inclu d ed , “‘f req u en cyo f th e d iscri m inato ry
co n d u ct; it s sev erity ; w h ethe r i t is p h y s ica ll ythrea tenin g o r hu m il iat ing , o r a m ere
o ffen sive u tt era n ce ; and w h ethe r i t un rea so n ab lyinterfe res w ith an em p loy ee ’s w o rk per form ance . ’ ” Far agher , 524 U
. S. at787- 88 ( quot i ng Ha rr is , 5 1 0 U
. S
. at 23 ).

“ [ S ]im p le te a sin g , o ff h a n d c o m m e n ts, a n d iso late d in c id e n ts (u n les s e x tre m e ly
s er i ous ) wi l l n o ta mou n tt o d i s c r i mi n a t o ryc h a n g e s i n th e ‘ t e r ms a n d c o n d i t i o n s of
em pl oym ent . ” Id
. at78 8 (i nternal ci t at i on and qu otat i on s om i t t ed). In m aking t his det erm i nat i on, w e mustcons i der“the s o cial cont exti n w hi ch part i cul arbehavi or
occur s and i s exper i ence d byi t s t ar get . ” O n c a le , 523 U
. S. at81. A tl as t , even a ft era hos t i l e w o r k envi r onm enthas been e s t abl i s hed, “[f] oran empl oy ert o be l i abl e forthe sexual har as s m entof an e m pl oy ee bya cow or ker , t he har as s ed empl oy ee musts how t he empl oy er both ( 1) knew ors houl d have know n of th e h a ra s s m e n t a n d (2 ) fa ile d to ta k e p ro m p t a n d a p p ro p ri a te c o rr e c tiv e a c tio n .” E
. E
. O
. C
. v. Har ber t - Yeargi n, Inc. , 2 6 6 F .3 d 4 9 8 , 5 1 8 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). G e n e ra l l y, 3(
. . . cont i nued) 3 t he al l eged hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcr eat ed byB r ock bec aus e he w as the m anage rof the ent i r e C l ai m s D epart m entw her e both C l ark and K noop w or ked, and ther efor e had s upervi s or yauthor i tyoverthem”)
. H er e, how ever , Pl ai nt i ffs a c k n o w le d g e d M o o re d id n o t e n g a g e in a n yb e h a v io r t h e yc o n s id e re d h a ra s s in g . 15 “ a re s p o n s e is a d e q u a te if it is re a s o n a b ly ca lc u la te d to e n d th e h a ra s s m e n t.” Jacks on
v. Q uanex Corp. , 191 F. 3d 647, 663 ( 6th C i r . 1999)
. E vi dence a supervi s orknew of th e h a ra s s in g c o n d u c t s u ff ic e s to e s ta b lis h c o n s tru c tiv e n o tic e . See R a n d o lp h v . O h io D ep’ tof Youth Ser v. , 453 F. 3d 724, 735 ( 6th C i r . 2006) ( fi ndi ng s um m aryj udgm ent im p rop erly g ran ted w h ere the p lai n ti ff ’s t esti m o n yind icated su p erv isors w ere aw are
o f th e h a ra s s m e n t b u t la rg e ly ig n o re d it)
. C. A ft er r e v i e wi n g t h e r e c o r d b e fo r e u s , we a g r e e th a ts u mma ryj u d g me n twas p ro p e r o n P la in tiffs’ c laim o f h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t sa m e -se x h a ra ss m e n t. N ot w i t h stan d i ng Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum entt o the contr ary , theypr es ent ed no evi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur ycoul d r eas onabl yfi nd i n thei rfavor
. B oar dw i ne’ s behavi orw as undoubt edl y vul gar and w hol l y i nappr opr i at e for the w or kpl ace . B u t Pl ai nt i ffs p re s e n te d n o e v id e n c e th a t P la in tiffs ’ s e x m o tiv a te d B o a rd w in e ’s b e h a v io r. See O n c a le , 5 2 3 U. S. a t 8 0
- 8 1 ( d i s c u s s i n g th r e e e v i d e n t i a ry r o u t e s u n d e r whi ch a pl ai nt iff i n a s ame- s ex har as s m ents ui tm aypr ove an i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e of s ex)
. I n t he cont ext of s ame- s ex har as s m ent , an empl oy ee m ayp rove di s cr i m i nat i on base d o n sex w hen, forexampl e, evi dence s how s a w om an har as s ed16

ot herw om en “i n s uch s ex- s pec ifi c an d der ogat or yt erm s . . . as t o m ake i tcl eart hat t he har as s e ri s mot i v a t e d b yg e n e r a l h o s t i l i tyt o th e p r e s e n c e o f wome n i n t he
w or kpl ace . ” Id
. at 80
. M o st of P lai n ti ffs’ all eg a tio n s o f h ara ssm en t, h o w ev er, are d e v o id o f

se x -sp e c ific o r d e ro g a to ryter m s a n d h a v e a b so lu telyn o th in g to d o w ith t h e fa c tt h a tP l a i n t i ffs a r e fe ma l e s . Pl a i n t i ffs a r g u e Bo a r d wi n e ’ s b e h a v i o rs h o ws “ant i
- femal e ani m us ” bec aus e Pl ai nt i ffs w er e “s ubj ect ed t o genders peci fi c epi t aph and comm ent s or conduct appl i cabl e t o the femal e geni t al i a[. ] ” H ar as s m entdoes not
ar i s e, how ever , sim p ly b ecaus e “the w or ds us ed [ort he ges tur es us ed] have s exual cont entorconnot at i ons . ” Id
. A nd i n fa ct, D err i ck, Y oung, and Lee admi t t ed B oar dw i ne di d notdi r ectanys exual comm ent s ori nnuendos t ow ar d them. B augham pr es ent ed no evi dence t o t he contr ary . P lai nt i ffs ’ concl us or yal l egat i ons and
u n su p p o rte d sp e c u latio n s th a t B o a rd w in e h a rb o re d h o stilityto w a rd fe m a les is in s u ffic ie n t to o v e rc o m e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 47 7 U. S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 -23 (19 8 6 ). M ot i vat i on as i de, no r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d concl ude the w or ki ng envi r onm ent
w as s uffi ci ent l ys ever e orpervas i ve t o su stai n Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m . M os t , i f notal l , of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons cons i s tof one t i m e occur r ence s that t ook pl ace overa per i od of three yea rs . E ven cons i der i ng the m i n t he t ot al i ty , w e ca n har dl ys ayt he
e n v ir on m ent w as perm eat ed w i t h d i scr i m i natoryi nti m i dati on , ri dicul e, and i nsult. Ha rr is , 5 1 0 U
. S
. at 21
. B o ard w ine’s c o n d u ct w as c ertainlyv u lgar, bu t T it le V II17

d o e s n o t a tte m p t “t o p u rg e th e w o rk p la c e o f v u lg a ri ty.” B a ske rvil le v. C u ll iga n Int’l C o. , 50 F. 3d 428, 430 ( 7t h C i r . 1995)
. A nd Pl ai nt i ffs pr es ent ed no evi dence t he
w or ki ng environ m entw as “s o obj ect i vel yoffe ns i ve as t o al t ert he ‘ condi t i ons ’ ” of their em p loym en t. O n c a le , 532 U
. S. at81. B augham and L ee w or ked i n an off i ce l ocat ed i n a di ffe r entci t yand o n ly saw B oar dw i ne dur i ng s t aff m eet i ngs . L ee s aw Bo a r d wi n e fo u rt i me s a mo n t h
. W hi l e Y ou ng a n d Bo a r d wi n e wo r k e d i n th e s a me offi ce, Y oung onl ys aw B oar dw i ne once a w eek. M or eover , both B augham and D e r r i c k a d m i t t e d e n g a g i n g i n s i m i l a rc o n d u c t . D e rr i c k a d m i t t e d u s i n g p r o fa n i t y, di s cus s i ng heri nt i m at e r el at i onsh ips w i th m en, and t el l i ng l ew d and s ugges t i ve j okes
. B a u g h a m a d mi t t e d t o d i s c u s s i n g h e rp e r s o n a l a n d i n t i ma t e s e x l i fe wi th h er
c o - wo r k e r s , i n c l u d i n g Bo a r d wi n e . An d Le e h e a r d c o - wo r k e r s , i n c l u d i n g Ba u g h a m,
u s e p ro fa n itie s a t w o rk
. L as t l y , Pl ai nt i ffs cannot pr ove A val on’ s l i abi l i ty . W hi l e M oor e mi ghthave been a w ar e of s om e of Boar dw i ne’ s behavi or , notunt i l Pl ai nt i ffs fil ed thei rform al gr i evanc e di d M oor e l earn Pl ai nt i ffs cons i der ed B oar dw i ne’ s behavi or har as s i ng. A n d a f ter P lain tiffs filed th e g rie v a n c e , A v a lo n to o k p r o m p t an d a p p ro p ria te
re m e d ia l a c tio n to re c tif yth e s itu a tio n . Ha rb e rt-Ye a rg in , 266 F. 3d at518. Pl ai nt i ffs
ow n evi dence su p p o rt s a conc l us i on thataft ertheyfi l ed the gr i evanc e theydi d not
o b serv e B o ard w ine e n g ag e in a n yh ara ssing b eh av ior. T h ere fo re, th e d istri ct co u rt18

d id n o t err i n g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t t o A v alon o n P la in tiffs ’ ho sti le w o rk
e n v ir o n m e n t s a m e -s e x h a ra s s m e n t c la im
. III
. D err i ck and Y oung al s o ar gue the di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n concl udi ng as a mat t er of l aw t hatA val on di d not cons t ruct i vel y di s char ge t hem. W e di s agr ee. H ar as s m ent th a t c re a tes a h o stile w o rk in g e n v iro n m e n t m a yin so m e c irc u m sta n c e s c o n stru c tiv e ly d is c h a rg e a n e m p lo y e e . T o p re v a il o n a c la im fo r c o n s tru c tiv e d is c h a rg e , i n addi t i on t o s how i ng t he har as s i ng behavi orw as s uffi ci ent l ys evere to al t erthe t erm s and condi t i ons of empl oym ent , t he empl oy ee m us ts how “w or ki ng condi t i ons [bec ame]
s o in to le ra b le th a t a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld h a v e fe lt c o m p e lle d to re s ig n .” P enn sylvan i a S tate Po l i ce v. Su ders , 5 4 2 U .S . 1 2 9 , 1 4 6 -4 7 (2 0 0 4 ). I n addi t i on t o t he fa ctD err i ck and Y ou n g h av e nots how n the w or ki ng envi r onm entatA val on w as s uffici ent l ys ever e t o al t erthe t erm s and condi t i ons of th e ir e m p lo ym e n t, n e ith e r Y o u n g n o r D e rric k h a s p ro v e n th e yfe lt co m p e lled to
r es i gn. D err i ck r es i gned on Jan u ary21, 2003, effect i ve i m m edi at el y , w hi l e Y oung
r e s i g n e d o n F e b ru a r y 9 , 2 0 0 3 , e ffe c t i v e l yth i r ty - d a y s l a t e r . Bo th r e s i g n a t i o n s c a me aft ert he Per s onnel C om m i t tee rea ch ed i t s deci s i on and w el l aft eral l har as s i ng b e h a v io r h a d sto p p e d . T h e re fo re , the w o r k in g e n v iro n m e n t at th e tim e o f th e ir
r es i gnat i on w as no t so intoler abl e s o as t o l ead a r eas onabl e per s on t o r es i gn fr om herem p loy m en t. M or eover , nei therD err i ck norY oung r es i gned as a r es ul tof anY oung al s o ar gues s he w as cons truct i vel ydi s char ged w hen s he made her 4 r es i gnat i on effect i ve i m m edi at el yaft erl earni ng M oor e had a l l egedl yr et al i at ed againsther byt el l i ng som e em ploy ees Y ou ng had fi l ed the gri evan ce bec ause M o o re c a u g h t h e r i n a lie . Y o u n g ’s a rg u m e n t is u n p e rs u a s iv e fo r t w o re a s o n s . Fi r s t , Y oung had al r eadyr es i gned fr om herempl oym ent . Second, A val on can d efen d ag ains t suc h claim b ec au se Y o u n g d id n o t com p lai n to M o o re’s su p e rv iso rs a b o u t M o o re ’s p u rp o rte d c o n d u c t so a s to g iv e A v a lo n a n o p p o rtu n ity to re m e d yth e s itu a tio n . See Su ders , 542 U
. S. at133- 34 ( “A n empl oy erm ay defe nd agai ns ta [c ons t ruct i ve di s char ge] cl ai m bys how i ng bot h ( 1) t hati thad i ns t al l ed a r eadi l yacc es s i bl e and e ffe ct i ve pol i cyforr eport i ng and r es ol vi ng c o m p lain ts o f

se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t, an d (2 ) th a t th e p lain tiff u n re a so n a b lyfa iled to a v a il h e rs e lf

o f th a t e m p lo y e r- p ro v id e d p re v e n tiv e o r r e m e d ia l a p p a ra tu s .” ). 19 in to ler a b le e n v iro n m e n t. D e r r ic k re sig n e d b e c a u se sh e w a s u n sa tisfied w ith A val on’ s deci s i on and Y oung r es i gned ci t i ng phi l os ophi cal di ffe r ence s . T her efor e, 4 t he d i stri ctcou rtdid not err i n a w ardi ng A valon sum m aryj ud gm ent on P l ai nti ffs’
c o n s t ru c t i v e d i s c h a r g e c l a i m. I V. L as t l y , B augham and L ee a r gue the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n concl udi ng A val on d id n o t re talia te a g a in st th e m fo r fili n g th e ir g rie v a n c e . T h e yc ite to n u m e ro u s a c ts A v alon too k ag ains t them in r etali ati o n fo r fil ing the griev an ce . In g ran ti n g A v alon ’s
m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent on thei r T i t l e V I I r et al i at i on cl ai m , the di s tri ct co u rt found B augham and L ee’ s al l egat i ons di d notr i s e t o the l evel of adve r s e empl oym ent act i on. W hi l e t hi s appea l w as pendi ng, how ever , the Supr eme C our tdeci ded B u rlin g to n N. & Sa n ta Fe Ry . C o . v. Wh ite , 5 4 8 __ U
. S
. __ , 1 2 6 S
. C t. 2 4 0 5 (20 0 6 ),
c h a n g in g th e leg a l sta n d a rd to b e a p p lied to c laim s o f re talia tio n b ro u g h t u n d e r T itl eF o ll o w ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m aryjud g m en t i n A v alon ’s 5 fa v o r, P lai n ti ffs filed a p o st-jud g m en t m o ti o n see k ing to am en d the c o u rt ’s concl us i on, amend oral t ert he court ’ s j udgm ent , orobt ai n r el i ef f r om j udgm ent u n d e r R u le 5 2 (b ), R u le 5 9 (e ), an d R u le 6 0 (b ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re re sp e c tiv e ly . P lain tiffs a rg u e d th e d istric t co u rt e rre d b yfa ili n g to c o n sid e r c e rta in e v id e n tiary do c u m e n ts filed in su p p o rt o f th e ir m o tio n in oppos i t i on t o s um m aryj udgm ent . I n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , t he di s tr i ct co u rtn o ted “ P lai n ti ffs’ su p p o rt ing p ap ers in o p p o sit ion
. . . co n sist [] o f u n sw o rn a n d u n s ig n e d re s p o n s e s to in te rr o g a to ri e s a n d u n a u th e n tic a te d d o c u m e n ts . . . [that ] do notcompl yw i t h R ul e 56( e)
. ” Pl ai nt i ffs appea l t he court ’ s det erm i nat i on ar gui ng i n concl us or yfas hi on t he courtcomm i t t ed err or . W e di s agr ee. A ft er r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ydi s r egar ded P lai n ti ffs’ resp o n ses to A v alon ’s i n terrog atories a n d resp o n ses to A v alon ’s re q u e st fo r p ro d u c tio n a s th e d o c u m e n ts P lain tiffs s u b m itt e d in su p p o rt o f th e ir o p p o sit ion m o ti o n w ere n eith er sign ed n o r au then ti ca ted a n d , there fo re, are in a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e fo r p u rp o s e s o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (e ).
20 V II. W e e x p r e s s n o o p in io n a s to h o w th is iss u e sh o u ld b e re so lv e d . W e th in k it pr opert o all o w the d i s t r i ctcourtt o fi r s taddr es s thi s i s s ue i n l i ghtof B ur l i ngt on . A ccor di ngl y , w e r emand t o t he di s tr i ct courtB augham and L ee’ s T i t l e V I I r et al i at i on
c l a i m. 5 V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e affi r m the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or der gr ant i ng
su m m a ryju d g m e n t in A v a lo n ’s fa v o r a s t o P la in tiffs’ c laim s fo r a se x u a l h o stile
w ork env i ronm ent and co nstruct i ve di scharge un der T i t l e V II
. W e rem and P l ai nti ffs’ claim fo r retal iat ion u n d er T it le V II w ith instruc ti o n s tha t th e d istri ct co u rt
r econs i deri t s deci s i on i n l i ghtof B u rlin g to n N. & Sa n ta Fe v . Wh ite .21

A F F IR M E D IN P A R T , V A C A T E D IN P A R T , A N D R E M A N D E D IN P A R T F O R F U R T H E R C O N S ID E R A T IO N C O N S IS T E N T W IT H T H IS OP I NI ON.