NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 13a0778n.06 No. 12-6327 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT DAVI D S. ENGL I SH, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. GENERAL

DYNAMI CS I

NFO RMATI ON TECHNOL OGY COMPANY, I NC., Def endant - Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEFORE: K

EITH and McKEAG UE, Circuit Judges; and WATS ON, District Judge. * DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge

. Plaintiff-Appellant Da vid Eng lish seeks reve rsal of the district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of De fenda

nt-Appellee Gene ral Dy

namics I nformation Tec hnology Company , I nc. (“G DI T ”) i n t h i s Title VI I action alleg ing hostile work environment based on rac ial discrimination. The alleg ed hostili ty and discrimination was inflicted by a cowor

ker who was not Plaintiff’s supervis o r. T h e d i strict court g rante d summary judgme nt concluding that there was no evidenc e that his abusive cowor ker w as abusive on the basis of ra ce, that the hara ssment was not seve re o r perva sive, and that GDI T should not be held liable for the abusive c oworke r’s c onduct. For the re asons below, we aff irm the district court’s judg ment. Plaintiff David S. Eng lish, an Afric an-A merica n male, beg an wor

k in g f o r G D I T in Dec ember 2007 as a janitor/g roundskee per. At the time of his hiring , the on l y o t h er GDI T employ ee in the

The Honor able Micha el H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Souther n District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation.j anit or/g roundskee per position was J ames Roge rs, a white male who had worke d there for y ea rs .

Plaintiff and Roge rs wer e peer s who repor ted to the same supervisor. Roge rs was indisputably an abusive and awf

ul cowor ker. The fac ts of this case are u n d er s tood by the parties and wer e thoroug hly outlined by the di strict court. English v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech. Co. , No. 3: 11-cv0347, 2012 WL 4506016, (M.D. Te nn. Sept. 28, 2012). We only rec ite the fa cts here as nee ded. This Court re v iews a district court’s g rant of a motion for summary judgme nt de novo , construing the evidenc e an d d ra wi n g all rea sonable infere nces in favor of the non-moving party

. Ireland v. Tunis , 113 F.3d 1435, 1440 (6th Cir. 1997). Summary judgme nt is proper if, afte r viewing the evidenc e that way , there are no g enuine issues of materia l fac t, and the moving party is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The movi ng party has “the burden of showing the abse nce of

a g enuine issue as to any materia l fac t.” Adicke s v. S.H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). For its part, the non-movant must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphy sical doubt as to the materia l fac ts.” Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 586. I t must provide “sig nificant probative evidenc e” to de feat a proper summary judgme nt motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). This Court must decide whether there is sufficie nt “evide nce on which the jury could

rea sonably

find” for the non-movant whe n deciding a summary judgme nt motion, id. at 252. Plaintiff alleg es that he was subject to a hostile work environment at GDI T. I t is undisputed that Roge rs, Plaintiff’s cowor ker, curse d, y elled, slammed doors, threw a mouse pad at him, threw key s at him, hit him with a car dboard box , pu l l ed a k nife on him, and repor ted him for working overtime without documenting it. Plaintiff claims that his cowor ker’ s abusive trea tment of him was

rac e-ba sed and that it would not have occurre d i f h e wer e white. Plaintiff’s conclusion is based

2almost entirely on one ra cist comment by Roge rs. To establish a hostile w ork environme nt claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protec ted class; (2) he was subject to unwelcome d hara ssment; (3) the hara ssment was based on his rac e; (4) t h e hara ssment cre ated a hostile work environment; and (5) the employ er failed to take rea sonable car e to preve nt and corr ect any hara ssing behavior

. Russell v. Univ. of Toledo , 537 F.3d 596, 608 ( 6th Cir. 2008). I t is not disputed that, as an Afric an-A merica n, Plaintiff was a member of the protec ted class, and that he w as subject to unwe lcomed har assment. He the ref ore must only

establish three things
to establish a hostile work environment claim: (1) that the hara ssment was based on his rac e; (2) the hara ssment cre ated a hostile work environment; and (3) that GDI T failed to take rea sonable car e to preve nt a nd corr ect the hara ssing behavior

. There fore , summary judgme nt w as proper in this case if Eng lish is i ncapa

ble of e stablishing any

one of the three require ments. Be cause Plaintiff cannot establish a g enuine issue as to whether GDI T failed to exercise

rea sonable car e to preve nt and correc t t he hara ssing behavior , we uphold the g rant of summary judgme nt to Def

endant and decline to addre ss whether the hara ssment was based on rac e or whether it cre ated a hostile work environment. “The fi n al el em ent of [P laintiff’s] claim require s [hi m] to establish that [GDI T] knew or should have known about the hara ssment and failed to take action.” Bailey v . USF Holland, Inc. , 526 F.3d 880, 887 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff admits that he never told his supervisors that he thought the hara ssment by Roge rs

was based on his rac e until the day befor e he filed the EEOC char g e on Dec ember 2, 2009. Plaintiff argues that GD I T s h o u l d have known that his complaints involved rac ial discrimination beca use Roge rs is white and Plaintiff is Afric an-A merica n. Plaintiff does not cite any leg al authority that is on-point for such a proposition. The rec ord sh o ws t h at Roge rs was rude to ever y one, black and

3white alike. Plaintiff’s asser tion that GDI T should have kn own the tension betwee n the two was based on Plaintiff’s rac e is meritless. There is no evidentiar y support for a finding that GDI T knew or should have know n that rac ial discrimination was involved. Fur thermore , the district c ourt corr ectly rea soned that GDI T distributed e qual employ ment opportu n ity and hara ssment policies, repe atedly counsele d Plaintiff and Roge rs, war ned Roge rs about the need to trea

t cowor kers with respe ct, separ ated the two men to minimi ze their interac tions, investigated Plaintiff’ s cl aim s thoroug hly , and even terminated Roge rs—a more senior employ ee—be fore terminatingPlaintiff. Acc ording ly , Plaintiff’s claim is defe ated by the failure to establish liability of GDI T for Roge rs’ mi sconduct. We decline to addre ss the ot her elements of the cl ai m . S ummary judgme nt

was proper ly g rante d in this ca s e. For the fore g oing rea sons, we AF F IRM the district court’s judgme nt.

4