FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E ALS ELE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAY 5 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15754 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -022 15 -C V -C C -1 L A S H A U N P . H O O K S , P la in tif f

- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s B A N K O F A M E R I C A , D e fe n d a n t, BANK OF AM ER I CA, NA TI ON AL A S S O C I A T I O N , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 5, 2006) B efo re C A R N E S , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Hooks also challeng es the dismissal of her de famation claim under state law. A 1 defamation claim under Georg ia l aw has a one-year statute of l imitations . See Ga . Code. Ann. § 9- 3- 33 ; Mc Candlis s v . Co x Enters ., Inc. , 5 93 S.E .2 d 8 56 , 8 59 (G a . Ct . App . 2 00 4) . Theinc idents alle g e d inHo ok s’ s c omp laint too k plac e so metime in 200 2, bu t she did no t f ileher c omp laint

until June20 04 , w hic h w a s w e ll after thee xpir atio n o f thelimitatio ns peri od . Thu s, her de famatio n c laim was un t i m el y an d was properly dismiss ed. We re

ject Hooks’s additional claims under state law, inc ludingperj ury , f

ra ud , s abo tag e , e sp ion ag e , andc on sp ir ac y , all o f whic h sh e a ssert s fo r thefirs t ti m eo nap p e al , h av i n gn e v er r ai s e dth e mi nth edi s tri c tc o urta s b a s e s f o r re c o v ery. 2 L a S ha un P . H ooks , a b l a c k fe m a l e pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , a ppe a l s f r om the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordergrant i ng sum m ar y j ud gm enti n favor o f B an k o f A m er i ca (“ B O A ”) , w here she pre v i ou sl y w as em pl oyed as a par t -t i m e t el l er . In her c o m p la in t, s h e a lle g e d c la im s fo r r a c e d is c r im in a tio n , h o s tile w o r k e n v ir o n m e n t, a nd r e t a l i a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of T i t l e V I I , 42 U . S . C . §§ 2000e-2 , 2 0 0 0 e-3, a nd a defa m at i on cl ai m un der G eorgi a l aw . O n app ea l , H oo ks ar gu es the di stri ctcourt erre d b y fi nd i ng thatshe fai l ed t o est abl i sh a pri m a fac i e c as e on h erT i t l e V II c la im s . A f

te rc a r e f u l r e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m . 1 W e r evi ew “ a gra ntof sum m ar y j ud gm entde no vo , usi ng th e s am e l egal s t a nda r d a s the di s tr i c tc our t . ” M e r r i t tv. D i l l a r d P a pe rC o. , 120 F . 3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1184 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . S um m a r y j udgm e nti s pr ope ri f the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a nd a f f i da vi t s s how tha tthe re i s n o g enui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l fa c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o j u d g m en t as a m a t t e rof l a w . S e e C e l ot e x C or p. v. C a tr e t t , 477 U . S . 317, 322 ( 1986) ( quot i ng F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( c ) ) . T he r e i s a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a te r ia l fa c t o n ly if

th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty h a s p r o d u c e d e v id e n c e th a t a r e a s o n a b le3

fa ct -f i nd ercoul d return a verd ict i n i t s favor. W addel l v. V al l ey F orge D ent al A sso cs. , I nc . , 276 F . 3d 1275, 1279 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he non- m ovi ng pa r t y m u st m ake a su ff

i ci entshow i ng on ea ch es se nt i al el em entof t he ca se for w hi ch he has the bur de n of

pr oof . C e l ot e x, 477 U . S . a t323. T i t l e V I I m a ke s i tunl a w f u l fo r a n e m pl oy e r“ t o di s c ha r ge a ny i ndi vi dua l , or othe r w i s e t o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns ta ny i ndi vi dua l w i th r e s pe c tt o hi s c om pe ns a t i on, t er m s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent , b ecause of s uch i nd i vi du al ’ s r ac e, c ol or , r e l i gi on, s e x, orna t i ona l or i gi n. ” 42 U . S . C . § 2000e

- 2( a ) . B eca us e H ooks r e l i e s on c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o e s t a bl i s h he rT i t l e V I I c l a i m s , w e t e s tthe suff i c i e nc y of

tho s e c l a i ms by a pp l y i ng the bu r de n- s hi f t i ng f r a me w or k e s t a bl i shed i n M cD on nel l D ou gl as C orp. v. G re en, 4 1 1 U .S . 792 (197 3), and T exas D epar t m entof C om m un i t y A ffai rs v. B urdi ne, 45 0 U . S . 24 8 (19 81 ). S ee C hapm an v . A I T r a n s p ., 2 2 9 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . U nd erthe M cD on nel l D ou gl as fr am ew ork, a pl ai nt i ff fi rs tm ustshow an i nfe r e nc e of

di scri m i n a t or y i nt e nt , a nd thus c a r r i e s the i ni t i a l bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng a pr i m a fa c i e c a s e of

di s cri m i na t i on. S e e M c D onne l l D ougl a s , 411 U . S . a t802. T h e p l ai n t i ff’ s su ccessfu l assert i o n o f a p ri m a faci e case “creat es a reb u t t ab le pr e s um pt i on th at t h e em pl oy e runl a w f ul l y di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns the r . ” E E O C v. Joe’ s S t on e C ra b, Inc. , 29 6 F . 3d 12 65 , 12 72 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 2) (c i t i ng U . S . P ost al4

S e r v. B d. of

G ove rn o r s v. A i ke ns , 460 U . S . 711, 714 ( 1983) ) . S e c ond, i f the pl a i nt i f f s uc c e s s f ul l y de m ons tr a t e s a pr i m a fa c i e case, the bur de n the n s hi f t s t o the e m pl oy e rt o pr oduc e e vi de nc e tha ti t s a c t i on w a s t a ke n fora l e gi t i m a t e , no ndi s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on. S e e J oe ’ s S t one C r a b, 296 F . 3d a t1272. W e p ro ce e d t o the thi r d s t e p of

the a na l y s i s onc e the e m pl oyer m e e t s i t s bur de n of pr oduc t i on by pr of fe r i ng a l e gi t i m a t e, non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on, the r e by r e but t i ng the pr e s um pt i on of

di s c r i m i na t i on, a nd “ [ our ] i nqui r y ‘ pr oc e e ds t o a ne w l ev e l of sp eci fi ci t y, ’ i n w h i ch th e p l ai n t i ff m u stsh o w th atth e p ro ffered reaso n real l y i s a pret extfo r u nl aw ful di sc ri m i nat i on . ” I d. at12 72 -73 (ci t i ng B urdi ne, 45 0 U . S . at 255- 56) . “ A l though the i nt e r m e di a t e bur den s of pr oduc t i on s hi f

tba c k a nd for th, th e u l t i m a te b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a d in g th e tr ie ro f fa c t th a t th e e m p lo y e rin te n tio n a lly di sc ri m i nat ed agai nstthe em pl oyee re m ai ns atal l t i m es w it h the pl ai nt i ff . ” I d. at 1 2 7 3 . A tth e f

i r s ts t e p o f

th e M c D o n n e l l D o u g l a s t e s t , t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma fa c i e c a s e o f

r a c i a l d i s c r i mi n a t i o n a n d r e t a l i a t i o n , th e p l a i n t i f f mu s ts h o w , a mo ng o th e rth in g s , th a t s h e s u f fe r e d a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c t i o n . I d . a t 1 2 8 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2000) ( di s c r i m i na t i on) ; W i de m a n v. W a l

- M a r tS t or e s , I n c. , 1 4 1 F . 3d 1453, 14 54 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( re t al i at i on ). W e have hel d t hat“ no tal l cond uctby an e m pl oy e rne ga t i ve l y a f fe c t i ng a n e m pl oy e e c ons t i tut e s a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt5

a c t i on. ” D a vi s v. T ow n of L a k e P ark , F l a . , 245 F . 3d 1232, 1238 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( di s c r i m i na t i on) ; G u p t a v. F l a . B d. of R e ge nt s , 212 F . 3d 571, 587 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (r et al iati o n ). Indeed, “ [a ] l tho ug h [T i t l e V II ] do es no tre qu i re proo f of di re ct e c onom i c co ns e que nc e s i n a l l c a s e s , the a s s e r t e d i m pa c tc a nnotbe s pe c ul a t i ve a nd m u s t a t le a s t h a v e a ta n g ib le a d v e r s e e f fe c t o n th e p la in t i ff ’ s e m p lo y m e n t.” D a v is 2 4 5 F. 3 d a t 1 2 3 9 . Th u s , w e h a v e r e q u i r e d a n e mp l o y e e t o s h o w “ a s e r i ous a nd m ater ial c hang e i n t he t er m s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent . ” I d. ; se e a l s o G upt a , 212 F . 3d a t587. “ [ T ] he em pl oy e e ’ s s ubj e c t i ve vi e w of the s i gn i fi can ce a nd a dve r s i t y of the e m pl oy e r ’ s a c t i on i s notc ontr ol l i ng; the e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n m u s t b e m a te r ia lly a d v e r s e a s v ie w e d b y a r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n in the c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” D a vi s 245 F . 3d a t1239. H e r e , H o o k s fa i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h th a ts h e s u f fe r e d a n a d v e r s e e mp l o y me nt act i o n an d th u s d i d n o tsa t i sfy h er i n i t i al b u rd en u n d er M cD o n n el l D o u g l as. V ie w in g a l l o f t h e fa c ts in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to H o o k s , n o n e o f th e in c id e n ts sh e d escri b ed , ei th er i n d i v i d u al l y o r i n co m b in a tio n , co n st i tu t ed an ad v erse em p loym entac t i on . T he i nci dent s i ncl ud ed t he fol l ow i ng : three cust om er com pl ai nt s, on e ora l re pri m and, on e w ri t t en re pr im an d , the w i thh ol di ng of a bui l di ng ke y , a n d a r e s tr i c t i on on c a s hi ng non- a c c ount - hol de rc he c ks . N one of the s e i nc i de nt s r e s ul t e d i n a ny m a t e r i a l c ha nge t o the t e r m s orc ondi t i ons of6

H oo ks’ s e m pl oym ent . Indeed, H oo ks adm i t t ed t h at h er p ay, ho urs, and j ob du t i es re m ain ed th e s am e a fter th e in cid en ts. C f. id . at 1 2 4 0 -4 1 ( w h er e p lain ti ff ’s di s pa r a t e - tr e a t m e ntc l a i m w a s pr e di c a t e d o n t w o k i nds of e m pl oy e ra c t s - - ne ga t i ve j ob perform ance m em oranda pl ac ed i n h i s f i l e a nd changes i n w ork ass i gn m ent s - - h o ld in g th a t th e s e a c ts w e r e n o t “a d v e r s e e m p l o y m e n t a c tio n s ” th a t r e s u lte d in ta n g ib le c o n s e q u e n c e s in th e fo r m o f lo s s o f p a y o rb e n e f

i t s ) . A s w e o b s e r v e d in D a vi s , “ c r i t i c i s m s of

a n e m pl oy e e ’ s j ob pe r for m a nc e - - w r i t t e n oror a l - - tha tdo no t l e a d t o t a ng i bl e j ob c on s e qu e nc e s w i l l r a r e l y for m a pe r mi s s i bl e pr e di c a t e for a T i t l e V I I s ui t . ” I d. a t1241. N one of the a l l e ge d i nc i de nt s i n H ooks c om pl a i nt c ons t i tu t e a n a d v e r s e e mp l o y me n ta c t i o n , w i th i n th e me a n i n g o f D a v i s , a nd th er efo re th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t er r b y en terin g su m m ar y j u d g m en t o n H o o k s’s d i scri m i n at i o n an d ret al i at i o n cl ai m s. A s fo rD a v i s ’ s h o s t i l e w o r k e n v i r o n me n tc l a i m , i n or d e rt o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma fa c i e cl ai m , sh e ha d t o e s t a bl i s h: “ ( 1) tha t[ s he ] be l ongs t o a pr ot e c t e d gr oup; ( 2) th at[sh e] h as b een su bj ectt o u n w el co m e h arassm en t ; (3 ) t h a t th e h arassm en t[w as] ba s e d on a pr ot e c t ed ch ar a c t e r i s t i c of the e m pl oy e e . . . ; ( 4) tha tthe ha r a s s m e nt w a s s uf f i c i e nt l y s e ve r e orpe r va s i ve t o a l t e rthe t erm s and c ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nta nd cre a t e a di s c r i m i na t or i l y a bus i ve w or ki ng e nvi r onm e nt ; a nd ( 5) tha tthe e m pl oy e ri s r e s pons i bl e fors uc h e nvi r onm en t u n d er e i the ra the or y of7

vi c a r i ous orof

di r e c tl i a bi l i t y. ” M i l l e rv. K e nw or th of D otha n, I nc . , 277 F . 3d 1 269, 1275 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . T he four th e l e m e nt- - tha tthe ha r a s s m e nta l t e r e d the t e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nt- - c ont a i ns both a s ubj e c t i ve an d a n obj e c t i ve com po nent . M endo zav. B orden, Inc. , 19 5 F .3 d 1 23 8, 12 46 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). T h u s , to s a tis f

y th is e le m e n t, th e e m p lo y e e m u s t s h o w th a t s h e s u bje c tiv e ly pe r c e i ve d th e h a r a s s me n t a s s e v e r e a n d p e r v a s i v e e n o u g h t o c h a n g e th e t e r ms or c ondi t i ons of

e m pl oy m e nta nd pr e s e ntfa c t s s uf f i c i e ntforthe d i st ri ct c our tt o f i nd tha tthi s pe r c e pt i on w a s o bj e c t i ve l y r e a s ona bl e . I d. I n m a ki ng thi s obj e c t i ve de t e r m i na t i on, t h e fol l ow i ng fa c t or s s houl d be c ons i de r e d: “ ( 1) the f r e que nc y of th e c o n d u c t; ( 2 ) th e s e v e r ity o f th e c o n d u c t; ( 3 ) w h e th e r th e c o n d u c t i s p h y s i c a lly thr e a t e ni ng o r hum i l i a t i ng, ora m e r e of fe ns i ve ut t e r a nc e ; a nd ( 4) w he the rthe c o n d u c t u n r e a s o n a b ly in te r fe r e s w ith th e e m p lo y e e ’s jo b p e r fo r m a n c e .” I d . W e r e a di l y c onc l ude tha tH ooks fa i l e d t o s how tha tthe a l l e ge d ha r a s s m e nt w a s s uf f i c i e nt l y sev ere t o a l t e rthe t e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of he re m pl oy m e nt . T he a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t s h e r e a r e th e s a me a s t hos e unde r l y i n g h e rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. T he s e i nc i de nt s w e r e notf r e que nt , s ev ere, orphy s i c a l l y thr e a t e ni ng, a nd H ooks adm i t t ed t hatno ne of t hese i nci dent s i nt er fe re d w i th h erj ob . T hu s, un der M e ndoz a , i ti s c l e a rtha tH ooks fa i l e d t o e st ab l i sh the obj e c t i ve c om pone ntof the8

four th e l e m e ntof

he rpr i m a faci e case. S ee 195 F . 3d a t1246. A c c or di ngl y , the B O A w a s e n title d to s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.