## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 3568 M AE T T A V ANC E , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. B ALL S TATE U NIVER S ITY, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:06- cv-1452

— Sarah EvansBarker, Judge
.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 29, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UNE 3, 2011

Befo re B AUER, W OO D , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. M ae tt a Van ce was th e o nl y Af r i ca nA m er ica n w or kin g i n h er d ep ar tm en t a t B all St at e U n ive r si ty( “Ba l lS ta te ”) whenr ac i al l y c ha r g ed di scord er up ted. In 200 5, Van c e b ega n fi l i ng co m pla i nts with BallS tat e about h er co w or ker s’ o ffensi ve conduct, wh i ch i n c l u d e d th e u s e o fr a c i a le p i th e t s , r e fe r e n c e s t o th e Ku K l ux K l an, ve i l ed thr eat s o f p hysi calhar m , and other unpl ea sa nt r i es . In 2 00 6 sh e fi l ed two c o m pl aint s wi ththe2 N o. 08

- 3568 Eq ual Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on ( “E E OC ”) f or ra ce disc ri m i nati on and, l ate r, re tal i ati on . A fter ge tt in g h er righ t-t o-s u e le tt er , sh e filed th is a c tio n in federa lco urt al l eging a ra nge offedera land sta te disc r im ination claim s. T he district cou rt grante d sum m ary j ud gm en t for the defendants and dis m i sse d the ca se. On a ppea l, Va nc e pur su es o nl y he r ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm ent a nd r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms a g a i ns t Ba l l S t a t e b a s e d on ass er ted vi ol ati ons ofTi tl e VI Io f t h e C i vi lRi ghts A ct o f 19 64 ( “Ti tl e VI I ”) , 42 U
. S. C. §§ 2000 e et seq
. B e c a u s e s he ha s no t es tabl i sh ed a basis fo r e m pl o y erl i ab i l i tyo n the ho st i l e wor k en vi r o nm en t cl ai m o r put f o r th s uffi ci en t f a c t s t o s u p p o r th e r r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m, w e a ffi r m.

I B a l lS t a t e p r e v a i l e d on s u mma r y j u d g me n t, a n d s o we r ec i te th e fact s i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to Va nc e, the non- m oving par ty. Vance b egan working f orBal lS tat e i n 19 89 as a s ubs ti tu te s er ve r i n the Ba nque t an d Ca te r i ng D ep ar tm en t o f U n ive rs ity D in in g Se rv ice s. In19 91 , B all S ta te pr o m o te d Va nc e to a pa r t- ti m e ca te r i nga ss i st an t posi ti on, and i n J anuary20 07 V an c e appli ed and w as sel ecte d fo r a pos i ti on a s a ful l

- ti m e ca ter i ng as si sta nt. Bet we e n 1 9 9 1 a nd 2 0 0 7, Va nc e g a i ne d e xp e r t i s e a s a b a k e r a nd e nj o y e d the c ha l l e ng e o f b a k i ng i t e ms f ro m scr atch. A ftershe bega n w or k a s a full

- ti m e e m plo yee , a po si ti o n tha t i nc l ude d a mode str ai se a nd a s i g ni fi ca nt i ncre ase i n benefi ts, heras si gnm ents chan ge d

. H ernew w ork cons isted o f p rep aring food, inc lud ing d inn ers f or f or m al eve nts, boxed l unches f or casual engage-N o. 08

- 3568 3

m ents, and si des and sal ads, f orthe cate ring depart

m ent’ s cl i ents. F o r many y ea r s th i ng s pr o g r es se d une ven tful l y . But i n 2 00 1, S au ndr a Dav i s, a c o wor k er, hi t Van ce o n the backo fthe head w i thout provo cati on. The two w ere di scussi ng a w or k- re l ate d du ty w h en Davi s be cam e a ggr essi ve, sho uted at Vance, and slapped Vance as she turned away . Va nc e o r al l y c o m p lai ne d t o he r s upe r vi so r s, b ut be ca us e Dav i s s o o n t r an sfer r ed to a no th erde par tment Vance di d not pursue th e m att er . A l so ar ound that ti m e, Bi l lKi m es b ec ame Va nc e’ s su per visor. Acco r di ng to Vance, Kim es gave herthe col d sh ou ld er , m ade her feel unw el com e a t work, and tr eat ed other em plo yee s t o l unch w hen she w as not ar ound. H e r efused to shak e h er h an d w h en th ey firs t m et in 20 01 , an d h e r o u t i n e ly us ed a gruff ton e of voice w ith he r. T h in gs t o o k a t u rn for th e w or se in 2 00 5. D av is re turned t o Vance’ s depart m en t, and on S eptem ber23 , 20 05 , th e t w o h ad an alt er c at ion in t h e e lev at or . D av is sto od i n Vance’ s way as she tri ed to ge t o ffthe el evat or and sai d, “I ’ l ldo i t a gain, ” which Vance too k t o be a re fer ence to the s l ap i n 20 01 . A few days l ate r, Vance he ard f r o m a fell ow em p loyee that anothe r cow orker, Connie M cVic ker, used t he r aci alepi thet “ni gge r” to r e fe r t o V a n c e a n d Afr i c a n - Am e r i c a n s t u d e n t s o n c a mpu s. M cVic keral so boas ted thatherf am i l y had t i es to th e K u K l u x Kl a n . O n S e p t e mb e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , V a n c e c o mpla i ned or al l y t o her supervi sorabout M cVic ker ’ s s tat em ents, and on October17, 2 00 5, she c al l ed U ni ver si ty Compl i an ce t o r eque sta co m pl aintf o r m . W hi l e r eque st i ng4 N o. 08

- 3568 th e d ocu m en t, V an ce again com p lai ne d abou t M cV icker’s r ac i al l y o ffen si ve co m m en ts an d, f o r th e fi r st ti m e, i nform ed Ba llSta te th at D avis had slapp ed her four years ear l i er . In ear l y Novem ber, Vance s ubm itt ed a w ri tte n co m pl aintde ta i l i ngM cVi ck er ’ s co m m en ts a nd the el evat ori nci dent w i th Davi s. BallS tat e be gan i nvest i gat i ng Vance’ s co m pla i nt r egar ding M c V icke r i m m edi ate l y. Once Vance s poke to U niversity C om p li an ce on Oc tober 17, 2005, tw o sup ervi sor s, Li sa Co u rtri ght a nd Kim es, m et to disc uss ho w to hand l e the m att er . Court ri ght s ent Vance a l etterto i nf o r m her th atthe y wer e i nv es ti g at i ng . In the mean t i me , s e v e r a lp e o p l e fr o m E mp l o y e e R e l a t i o ns b e c a me involved

. K im es’s i nv estigation co r roborated Van ce’s acco unt ofwh at M cVic ker s aid , al though the witnes ses coul d not r ecal lwh etherM cVic kerused the epi thet gener al l y or dir ecte d i t at Vance. The A ssi sta nt D ire cto r of Em p loyee Relations sen t an e m a il to the Director, st at in g: “I kn ow w e d on ’t h av e t h e s p e c i f ics on ex ac tly w hat a nd wh en the se utter ances w er e . . . but w e nee d to m ake a str ong sta tem ent that we w i l lN OT to l er ate thi s k i nd o fl anguage o r re sul ti ng ac tions i n the w or kp lac e.” B all St at e u se d a fou r-s te p p ro c es s t o h an d le em plo yee di sci pline, s tar ti ng with a ve rba lwarni ng f or the fi rs t infr acti on, f ol l owed bya w ri tt en w arningf or the s eco nd , with e scal ating co nsequences f orfurther vi ol ati ons. W i thi n thi s context, the A ssi sta nt Di re cto r co nc l ude d, “ Ithi nkwe ca n j us ti fy g o i ngb ey o nd o ur lim ited pri or past hi sto ry and i ssue a wri tte n w ar n in g . . . w e sh ou ld als o s tr on gly ad vis e h er ve rb ally when we i ss ue thi s tha t i t m us t st o p NOW a nd i ftheN o. 08

- 3568 5

w or ds/be havi orar e r epeate d, w e wil lm ove o n to m or e s er iou s d isc ip lin e u p to an [d ] inc lu d in g d isc h ar ge .” Fol l owing thi s r eco m m endati on, Kim es ga ve M cVic ker a w ri tte n w ar ni ng on N ove m ber 11, 2005 , f or“condu ct i nc o ns i sten t w ith pr o perb eh av i o r . ” The war ni ng expla i ned that M cVic ker w as bei ng disc i pline d for us ing offen sive rac ia l ep ithets , discu ssing h er fam il y’s r el at i o ns hi p wi ththe KKK , an d a l so “ l o o k i ngi nt en tly ” an d “st ar i ng f orpro l onge d peri ods atcow or ker s. ” Kim es advi sed M cVic ker that add i ti onal vi ol ati ons w ould l ead to fur th erdi sci pl i na r y a ct i o n. Da y s l at er, Co ur tr i g ht m etwi thM cVi ck ert o di sc us s th e warning; Co ur tr i g ht re i ter ate d that r aci al l y o ffensiv e com m ents w oul d not b e t ole ra te d . Sh e a lso su gg es te d th at M c V ick er sh ou ld consi der a voi ding Vance and tr ansfer ring to another departm ent. That sam e day, Vance com pla i ned to Courtr i gh t that M cVi ck err efer r ed t o heras a “po r chm o nk ey . ” Cou r tr i g ht adv i s e d V a nc e t o t e l lKi mes , wh i c h Va nc e di d. Ki mes i nvest i gat ed by speaking to ano therco w or kerwh om Va nc e s a i d wi tne s s e d the inc i de nt, b uttha tc o wo r k er did notco rr obo ra te Vance’s al l ega ti on. In turn, Kim es tol d Vance thatw i thout any witnesse s he coul d not disc i pline M cVic ker, wh o denie d m ak ing the co m m ent. K im es sa id th at fu rt h er a c t i o n on th is iss u e w ou ld d e v o lve int o a “s h e s aid -sh e s aid ” e x c h an ge . K im es d id not disc i p l i ne M cVic kerf orthe “m onke y” com m ent, nor does the re cor d sugges t that Cour tr i ght m enti oned i t when she spok e t o M cVic kerl ate r that w eek. Kim es did, however, tr y unsucces sfully t o schedule M cV ick er6 N o. 08

- 3568 and Vance to work on a l ternating days. Overa yea r l ate r, M cVic kervo l untari l y t ra nsfer re d to anot h er departm ent. I n r e s p o n s e t o V a nc e ’ s c o mp l a i n tab o u tth e S e p t e mber23 , 20 05, el evat ori nci dent w i th Davi s, Bal lS tate i nvest i gat ed but f ound confl i cti ng ac counts ofwh at had ha pp e ne d. Be f o r e V a nc e fi l e d h e r wr i t t e n c o mpl a i nto n N o ve m ber7, 2 00 5, Da vi s ha d fi l ed a co m pl ainta l l eg i ng th at V an c e s aid to D a v i s : “ M o v e , bitc h

. . . you are an ev il f------ b itc h .” K im es d isc u ss ed th e situ at ion w i t h h is s u p e r v i s o r, a n d th e y d e c i d e d th a tc o u ns e l i n gb o th e mplo yee s about re sp ect i n the w or kpl ace w as the b est path to f ol l ow. K i m es spoke with Vance about how to c om m u n ica te res p ec tfu lly inth e w o r k p l a c e, bu t itis uncle arwh etherhe ha d a si m i l arcon ve rs ati on with Dav i s. No o ne w as di sc i pl i ne d f o r the i nc i den t. Aro und thi s t i m e, tho ugh the re cor d i s no t cl earabo ut t he date, Davi s m ade r efer ences to “Sa m b o” and “Bu ckwh eat ” w h i l e h a vin g a co n ve rs at ion w ith an ot h er co w or ke r in Vance’ s pre sence. Vance unders too d these w or ds to be us e d i n a rac ial ly d erogatory w ay an d thu s fel t offended by the m , but she di d not co m pla i n to Bal lS tat e at that ti m e. Cond i ti ons w er e not im p ro vi ng f orVance, and on D ec em b er 2 2 , 200 5, sh e in for m ed K im es th at sh e fe lt th re at en e d an d int im id at ed by h er co w or ke rs . Th e fo ll o wi ngwe e kV a nc e fi l e d a char g e wi th the EE OC al l eging r ace, ge n d er , a nd ag e di scr i m i nati on. Vance also c o m pl aine d tha t, thr o ug ho utthi s per i o d, Da vi s an d M cVi ck erg av e he r a ha r d t i m e atwor kb y g l aringN o. 08

- 3568 7
at h er , slam m in g p ot s a n d p an s a ro u n d h er , an d int im id a t i n gh e r . In 2 0 0 6 , V a n c e fi l e d a c o mpl a i n ti d e n t i fy i ng a v a r i e t y o fo the r i ns t a nc e s wh e r e s he fe l th a r a s s e d, i nc l udi ngb eing“ bl o ck ed” o n the ele va to r b y Da vi s who “s to od th er e w ith h er ca rtsm ilin g” ; bein g left a lon e in th e k i t c h e n wi th Da v i s , wh o s mi l e d a t h e r ; an d b ei ng a r o un d D a v i s a nd McV i c k e r, wh o gav e h e r “ we i r d” l oo ks. S he al so fi l ed a com pla i nt al l eging tha t Kare n A dki ns, a supervi sor, “m ean- m ugged” her. Bal lS tat e i nvest i gat ed these i nci dents but f ou n d n o basi s t o tak e di sc i pl i na r y a ct i o n. O n M ay 10, 20 06, Vance fi l ed a c om pla i nt with Ba ll St ate ag ai nst he r supervi sor, ( sti l l ) Kim es, al l eging tha t h e f o r c ed h er to w or k t h ro u gh br ea ks . B all St at e in ve st iga te d bu t fo u n d n o fa c tu al b as is for th e a lleg at ion . In Augus t 20 06 , Va nc e fi l ed a se co nd c om p l aintwi ththe EE OC al l eging tha t Bal lS tat e r eta l i ate d against he r by ass i gni ng herdi m i ni shed w or k d u tie s, f or ci ng herto w o r k th roug h brea ks, d en ying he r the ch an ce to w ork o ve r ti m e ho ur s, a nd un equa ll y di sc i pl i ni nghe r . S he fi l ed thi s l aw sui t o n Octobe r 3, 20 06. W hi l e hercas e was pend i ng be f or e the di str i ct c ourt, B a l lS t a t e p r o mo t e d V a n c e t o th e p o s i t i o n o fa fu l l

- t i me c at er in g a ss ist a n t . St ill, th e s tr ife d id n otab at e. In Apr i l2 0 0 7, V a nc e fi l e d a g r i e v a nc e a g a i ns tMcVi cker f o r s ay i ng“ payba ck ” to he r . Thr ee su per vi so r s, i nc l udi ng K i m es, i nvest i gat ed; M cVic kerco u n te re d that Vance ha d s ai d to her: “J ust the be gi nning bi tch

— you bett er w atch y our house. ” Both w om en deni ed the al l ega ti o ns a g ains t th em, a nd Ba l lS ta te di d no t di sc ipl i ne8 N o. 08

- 3568 anyo ne. In A ugust 2 007, D avi s s ai d to Vance, “a re yo u sc ar ed, ” in a S o uthe r n a cc en t. Ba l lS ta te i nv es ti g at ed an d w arn ed Da vis ver b a lly not to en gage in su ch beh avior. That sa m e m onth, V ance c om pla i ned that du ring a ro uti ne day of w or k Kim es agg re ssi vel y a pp ro ached he r w hile r ep eated ly y ell ing the sam e qu estion at h er. W hen Bal lS tat e invest i gat ed, the w itness i denti fi ed by Vance di d n ot co rr obo ra te her acco unt ofthe i nci dent. I nstea d, the witness supp or ted K im es ’ s v er si on o fwh at had occurr ed an d add ed that i t was co m m on f orKim es to re peat hi m sel funti lhe was s ure th e othe r perso n had hear d him

. In Sep tem ber20 07, Davi s co m pla i ned that Van ce s pl at te r ed g r av y o n hera nd s l amm ed po ts a nd pans ar ound her. Vance deni ed t h e al l ega ti on but, ev en though no w i tness es cor robor ate d the eve nt, BallS tat e w ar ned Vance abo ut i ts pol i ci es. Vance a l s o c o mpl a i ns tha tBa l lS t a t e r e t a l i a t e d a g a i nst h er for c om p lain in g a b ou t t h e r ac ial h ar as sm en t. A lth ou gh she w as prom ote d i n 200 7, Vance a rgues that Bal lS ta te r ea ss i g ne d he r t o meni alta sks su cha s cut ting veg etabl es, w ashi ng frui t, and r efi l l i ng condi m ent trays. I n h e r v i e w, Ba l l S t a t e mad e he r i nt o a “ g l o r i fi e d sal ad gi rl ” e ven though she posse sse d a r ange ofadvanced ski l l s that co uld have bee n bet teruti l i zed bak i ng o r coo ki ng co m ple te m eal s.

II A B e f o r e r e a c h i ng the me r i t s o fV a n c e ’ s c l a i m, we m ust r eso l ve an ev i denti ar y i ssue. A fteral ldi sposit i veN o. 08

- 3568 9

m oti on deadl i nes had pas se d and both part i es had subm i tt ed th eir su m m ar y j udg m en t br i ef s, Va nc e so ug ht to supp l em en t th e r eco rd with e vi dence oftwo i nci dents that too k pl ace i n ear l y 2 008. The ev i dence i n c luded tw o affi davi ts tes ti fyi ng to a verbal l y abusi ve en c ounter wi thDa vi s’ s daught era nd h us ba nd. Dur i ngtha t i nci dent, Davi s’ s k i n i nsul ted Vanc e an d anotherco w or ker w i th r aci al ep i thets and physi cal l y threa tened them on u n ive rs ity p r o p er ty . Th e a ffid av its d oc u m en t t h is epi sode and K im es ’s a l l ege d fa i l ure to re spond w hen Vance com pla i ned. Vance al so subm i tte d tw o a rt i cl es pu bl i shed i n an o n -line Bal lS tat e for um thatdi scusse d Vance’ s di scr i m i nati on cl ai m s a gainst the uni ver si ty, along w it h sc ores of “com m en ts,” som e raciall y offen si ve , po st ed i n r es po ns e to the a r ti cl es . One o fthe ar ti cl es w as w ri tte n by one ofVance’ s co w or ker s. Van c e s u b mi t t e d th e e v i d e n c e o n Ma r c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , a nd Bal lS ta te move d t o s tr i k e. Ba l lS ta te ar g ue d b efo r e th e di st r i ctco ur t th atVa nc e was a tt empti ng“ ane nd r un” ar o und F ede r alRul e o fCi vi lPr o ce dur e 15 ( d) b y s ty l i ng her su b m issi on a s a supplem ent t o the s um m ar y j ud gm en t r ec o r d r athe r tha n a su p p l ement alpl ea di ng . The d i s t ric t c ou rtco n c lu d ed th at V an c e’s su p p lem en ta l ev id en c e fe ll w ith inth e p u rv ie w o fR u le 1 5(d ), an aly ze d it as if V an c e h ad filed a R u le 1 5 m ot ion, an d g r a n t ed B all St ate ’s m oti on t o str i ke. On app eal, Vance a sse rt s that th e co ur t sh o ul d ha ve pe r m i tt ed he r to s uppl ementthe r ec o r d, whi le Ba l lS ta te de fen ds th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ng on the gr ound t hat the co ntest ed evi dence pres ents new f actua l alleg at ion s a ga in st p er so n s n otp ar ty to th is law su i t.10 N o. 08

- 3568 I n o urv i e w, the s e ma t er i al s a r e b e s tv i e we d a s s up ple m ental to the sum m ar y j ud gm ent re cor d r atherthan as a d isguise d R u le 15(d ) su bm issi on. W he n a p lai nt iff i ni t i a t e s a ho s t i l e wo r k e nv i r o nme nt l a ws ui t, as o pposed to a sui t cl ai m i ng disc ri m i nati on base d on d i scr ete ac ts , s he us uall y c o m pl ains o fa n e m pl o y er ’ s co nt i nui ng vi ol ati on of Tit l e VI I “bas ed on the cum ulativ e effect ofi nd i vi du alact s. ” S ee Nat i onal R. R. Pas s e nge rCorp. v. M organ , 53 6 U.S. 101, 11 5 ( 2002 ) ( re cogni zi ng tha t host i l e e nvi ro nm ent c l ai m s bythei r very n ature invol ve re p e a t e d co n d u c t). T h e c on tin u in g v iola tio n d oc tr in e is usual l y invoke d to defe at a s tatute o fl i m i ta tio n s bar f orco nd uct that f al l s o utsi de the re l evan t peri od, se e D andyv . UPS , Inc. , 3 8 8 F
. 3 d 2 6 3 , 2 7 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , b ut w e t h in k t h e g en er al c on c ep t is ins tr u c tiv e in th is co nt ex t as wel l

. Tha t i s, a Ti tl e VI Iho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm ent c l ai m i s ag ainst the e m plo yerf orthe agg re gat e co nduc t o fo ne o r mor e o fi ts em p lo y ee s. By a ddi ng m ore “ind ivi d u al acts” as evid en ce of a hostil e w ork environm ent c l ai m , a pla i nti ffdoes no m or e than str engthe n herev i denti ar y r eco rd; thi s i s not en ough t o al l ege a disc re te new cl ai m . S ee M organ , 53 6 U.S

. at11 5 ( “Ho st i l e en vi r o nm en t cl ai m s ar e di ffer en t i n k i nd from discret e acts.”). Th us , B al l S t a t e mi s s e s the ma r kwh e n i tc o nt e nd s that these m ate ri al s i m pli cate per sons not n am ed as defe nd ants i n thi s l aw sui t. Tit l e VI I re gul ate s the co nd uct o fe mpl o y e r s , n ot i nd i v i du a le mpl o y e e s . S e e 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2 000e

- 2(a)

. I fadm i tte d, Vance’ s s up ple m entalev i dence m i g htha ve c as t so m e l i g hto n h er h o st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm ent c l ai m ag ai nst Bal lS tat e. W hetherBal lS tat e isN o. 08

- 3568 11 l i abl e forthe conduct o f an em plo yee ’ s f am i l y m em ber orst ate m ents i n a uni ver si ty pu bl i cati on i s a se parat e qu estion w e n e e d n ot resolve, becau se th e d istri ct cou rt did notabuse i ts disc re ti on in excl ud i ng the ev i dence. Va nc e mo v e d t o s up ple m entthe r e c o r d a ft e r the de a dl i ne s f o r di sc o ve r y a nd di spo si tive mot i o ns ha d “ l o ng passed. ” W e r egul ar l y a ffi rm a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on to excl ud e s up ple m entalev i dence i n the i nter esto f k ee p in g c as es m ov in g for w ar d . See , e . g. , Pfe i l v. R o gers , 757 F.2d 850, 858 (7th Cir. 1985).

B T u r n i n gt o th e me r i t s , we a p p l y th e we l l

- k n o wn deno vo st andard ofr evi ew to Vance’ s ca se. S ee C ha ney v . P l a infield Heal thc a re C enter, 612 F.3d 908 , 912 (7th C ir. 20 10 )

. Va nc e ar g ue s th atthe f ac ts s he ha s al l eg ed an d supp or ted ar e suffi ci ent to get her case bef or e a jur y, w hich w ou ld th en de term ine w h e t h e r her hos til e w ork envi ro nm ent a nd r eta l i ati on cl ai m s a re m er i tor i ous. W e ex ami ne e ac h o fhe r a r g um en ts i n tur n. Ti tl e VI Ipr o hibi ts e m pl o y er s fro m di sc r i m i na ting ag ains t a per so n wi thr es pec t to her“ co m pen sa ti o n, ter m s, co nd i ti ons, o r pri vi l ege s o fem plo ym ent, bec ause of such i nd ivi d ua l’ s race . . . . ” 4 2 U
. S. C

. § 2000e-2(a)(1)

. B all S t a t e , ho w ev er , i s n otliab le t o V an c e u n d er T itle V II f ora host il e workenvi ro nm ent unl ess Vance c an pro ve ( 1) tha t he r wor ke nviron m en t was b o tho bj ec ti ve l y a nd subj ecti vel y o ffensi ve; ( 2) thatthe hara ssm ent was ba sed on h er race; (3) t h a t t he cond uc t w as either sev ere orperv as ive; and ( 4) thatther e i s a bas i s forem plo yer12 N o. 08

- 3568 l i abi l i ty. S ee D e arv. Sh i ns e ki, 578 F.3d 605 ( 7th Ci r . 2009); C erros v . Steel Tech no lo gies , Inc . , 28 8 F
. 3d 1040 , 10 45 (7th C ir. 2002) (“ C e rros I”)

. W e e m phasi ze, as we have befo re , that the thi rd el em ent o fthe pla i nti ff’ s prim a facie case i s in the disj u n c tive

— the c onduct m ust be either seve re o r perva siv e. S ee C erros v . Steel Tech no lo gies , Inc ., 398 F.3d 944, 950 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 5) ( “ C er ros II”)

. The questi on w hetherther e i s a bas i s forem plo yerl i abi l i ty depend s o n w hetherthe al l eged h ar ass m ent was per petr ate d by s up er vi sor s or cowork er s. S ee Wil li am s v. Waste M gm t. of Ill

. , 3 61 F.3d 1021 , 1029 (7th Cir. 2004); see gen erally Fa rag her v . City of B o ca R a to n, 524 U
. S. 775, 80 7- 08 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , a nd Bur l i ng to n In dus

. , Inc . v. Ell e r t h, 52 4 U.S

. 74 2, 764- 65 ( 1998)

. Em plo yer s a re “s tr i ctl y l i abl e” f orhar ass men t i nfl i c t e d b y s up e r v i s o r s , b ut the y c a n a s s e rtan affir m a t i ve d efe n se w h en th e h ar as sm en t d oe s n otres u lt i n a t angibl e e m plo ym en t ac ti on. 36 1 F

. 3d at 1039 ( ci ting E ll er th , 5 24 U. S

. a t 75 6 an d Fa rag her, 524 U .S. at 8 07- 08)
. If on ly c ow o r k e r s w er e c u lp ab le for m ak in g a w or k e n vir o nm en t ho st il e, the pl aint i ffmusts ho w tha t th e empl o y erha s “b ee n n eg l i g en t ei th eri n di sc o ve r i ng orrem ed yi ng the har ass m ent. ” Id. ( i nt erna lc i ta ti o ns o mi t t e d)

. Van ce ar g ue s th atthr ee s upe r vi so r s, Ki m es , Adki ns , a nd Dav i s, ha r as se d he r o n a cc o unto fhe r r ac e. To b eg i n, V an ce ar g ue s th atthe r e ar e di spu te d f ac ts r eg ar di ng w he th er Da vis w as he r sup ervisor, m aking su m m ary j ud gm ent inapp ro pri ate o n thi s i ssue . W e find no such am bi gui ty. U nd erTi tl e V II, “[a ] superv i sori s s om eone w i th power t o di r e ct l y affec t th e te r m s an d c o ndi ti o ns o fthe pl aint i ff’ s employm en t
. ” Rhodes v. Il l

. D ep’ tofN o. 08

- 3568 13 Tran s p. , 35 9 F
. 3d 498, 50 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)

. That a uthori ty “pr i mar i l y c o ns i s t s o fthe p o we r t o h i r e , fi r e , de m ote , prom ote , tr ansfer, or dis ci pline an em plo yee . ” Hal l v. B o di neEle c. Co. , 27 6 F

. 3d 345, 35 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( i nter nal quotati on m ar ks and ci tat i ons om i tte d ). W e hav e no t j oi ned otherci rcui ts i n hold in g that the autho ri ty to d irect an em p loyee’s daily acti v ities estab li sh es su p ervi sor y s tatus under Ti tl e VI I
. S ee R ho des , 359 F. 3d at 509 (Rovn er, J ., con cu rri ng ) (arguing f or a broad er stan d ard o fs u p e r v i s o r l i ab i l i t y b a s e d o n E E O C g u i d e l i n e s )

. We concl ud e that Vance has no t re ve al ed a f actualdi spute re gar ding Davi s’ s s tatus by ass er ti ng tha t Davis had the a uthor i ty to tel lh er w h at to do o r that she di d not cl ock

- i n l i ke other hourl y e m plo yee s. Thi s m eans that we m us t ev alua te he r cl ai m ag ains t Dav i s und er the fra m ew or k forco w or kerco nd uct. W e ca n a l so sum m ar i l y di spo se o fVa nc e’ s al l eg at i o ns ag ain stsu p er vis or A d kin s. V an c e’s br ief s ay s litt le abou t w ha t A d kins m ay h a v e d o n e to m ake h er w ork envi ro nm ent ho sti l e. Bef or e the di str i ct c ou rt, Vance ar gued that A dki n s “m ean-m ugged” he r and star ed at her w hen theywere i n the ki tchen t oge ther

. M aking an ugl y f ac e at so m eone and sta ring, wh i l e no t the m ost m atur e thi ngs t o do, f al ls h ort o fthe ki nd o fco nd uct th a tmi g h ts u p p o r ta h o s t i l e w o r ke n v i r o n me n tc l a i m. Vance’ s co m pla i nt s about K i m es re quir e a cl ose r l oo k, but thi s r eve al s that s he has faile d to es tabl i sh that K i m es’ s co nd uct had a ra ci al“char acte r or p u rpos e. ” S ee Lu ck ie v. A m eritech C o rp . , 389 F.3d 7 0 8 , 713 (7th C ir. 2004). A l though there i s s om e ind ica tio n i n the re cor d that14 N o. 08

- 3568 K i m es w as gener al l y di fficu lt to w or k with, we assum e, f a v o r a b l y t o V an c e, th at h e p ick ed on h er . Still, eve n in that l i ght, Vanc e’s al l ega ti ons do not est abl i sh that K i m es’ s unki nd o r agg re ssi ve conduct w as m oti vate d by Vance’ s r ace. A l though a pl ai nti ffdoes notneed t o i den tify an e xpli ci tl y r aci aldi m ensi on o fthe chal l enged conduct to sust ai n a T itle V I Icl ai m , she m ust be abl e t o att ribute a r aci al“char act er o r pu rpos e” to i t. S ee Hardin v. S. C. John s on & So n, Inc . , 167 F.3d 340 , 345 (7th C ir. 19 99 ). Vance has no t put f or th anyf acts to es tabl i sh that any o fKim es’ s con d uct was m oti vate d by, o r had anythi ng to do with, r ace. To th e co ntra ry, i n herdeposi ti on Vance co nceded that s he neve r h ea rd Kim es sayanythi ng sug ges ti ng i l lwil lto w ar ds her bec au se ofher ra ce, nordi d any o therem plo yee r epor t t o Vance that Ki m es ha d ut te r ed r ac i al l y d er o g at o r y c o m m en ts
. The un di s pu t e d fa cts e s t ab l i s h tha tthe r e a r e n o g r o un ds f orem plo yerl i abi l i ty f orvi ol ati on o fTi tl e V II base d on the c onduct ofVance’ s s upervi sor s. T h i s l e a v e s V a n c e ’ s t r e a t me n ta tth e hands ofh e r t wo cowork er s, Davi s a nd M cVic ker

. W hen eval uati ng a hos til e w ork env ironm en t claim , w e con side r “ th e ent ire conte xt o fthe w or kpl ace, ” s ee C erros I, 28 8 F .3d at10 46, not the di scr ete acts ofi nd i vi du alem plo yee s. The di str i ct co urta na l y ze d Va nc e’ s al l eg at i o ns a g ains t Dav i s an d M cVi ck ersep ar at ely, fi ndi ngtha t su m m ar y j udg m en t w as properbas ed on the conduct ofea ch w om an i nd epen den tly . W e st r es s th ata h ost i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t cl ai m req u i re s a co nsi derat i on o fal lthe ci rcum sta nces, b ec au se in t h e e n d iti s t h e e m p loy er ’s lia b ility th at is at i ssue, notl i abi l i ty ofpart i cul arem plo yee s. Thus, f orN o. 08

- 3568 15

exam ple , i fwe had fo und thatVance’ s s up er vi sor s had co nt r ib ut e d t o a r a c i a l l y ho s t i l e wo r k e nv i r o nme nt, that con d uc t w ou ld form pa rt of th e con tex t f o r Van ce’s cl ai m ag ai nst Bal lS tat e, j ust a s the act i ons ofherco w or ker s would. The o nl y r eas on w e hav e di vi ded o ura nalysi s be twe enthe c o nduc t o fs upe r vi so r s an d empl o y ee s i s to e ns ur e thatwe ar e r es pec tingthe sta nd ar ds f orvi car i ous l iab i l i ty that apply. S ee Wi l l i a ms , 361 F. 3d at 1029

. Assu m i ngwi th o utde ci di ngtha t Van ce ’ s al leg at i o ns aga i nst he r cowork er s s ati sfy the fi rs t three el em ents of a T i t l e V I Ih o sti l e wo r ke nv i r o nme ntc l a i m, we c o nc l ud e n on et h ele ss th at V an c e c an n otp re va il be c au se th er e is n o b asi s forem plo yerl i abi l i ty. S ee Tu t man v . WBBM

- TV , Inc. / C B S, Inc. , 20 9 F
. 3d 1044, 10 48- 49 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( “We do no t dec i de whethe r a ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t ex iste d becau se th e qu estion w he th er [the em p loyer] took p rom p t and effective act ion i s d isposit iv e here.”). For Ba llState to be li able , Van ce m us t pu t forth suffi ci en t f ac ts t o e st ab l i shtha t i t w as ne g l i g en t i n f ai l i ng to “ ta ke reaso nabl e st eps t o di sc o ve r a nd r emedy the hara ssm ent. ” C er ros II , 39 8 F
. 3d at 953. Once aware of w or kpl ace h ar ass m ent, “the em plo yercan avo i d l i abi l i ty f o r i t s e mpl o y e e s ’ h a r a s s men ti fi tta k e s p r o mpta nd a ppr o p r i a t e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n r e a s o n ab l y l i k e l y t o p r e ve nt th e ha r as sment from re cur r i ng .” W yn ing er v. New V

entu re G ear, Inc. , 36 1 F

. 3d 965, 97 8 ( 7th C ir. 20 04) ( i nter nalci tations o m i tt ed)

. W hi l e i t i s unf o r tu na te tha t Bal lS ta te’s re m ed ial m eas ures di d not per suade Davi s o r M cVic ker to t r ea t Van ce wi thr es pec t, and w e ha ve no th i ngb ut co nd e mna t i o n f o r the ty pe o fc o nd uc tV a nc e h a s a l l e g e d,16 N o. 08

- 3568

w e fin d th at B all S t a t e s a tis fied its ob liga tio n u n d er T itle VI Ibypro m ptl y i nvest i gat i ng each of Vance’ s co m pla i nts and taking di sci plinaryact i on wh en appropr i ate
. S ee P orte r v. E rie Foo ds Int’lInc. , 579 F.3d 629 , 6 3 6 ( 7 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ O u r f o c u s , the r e f o r e , i s o n w h e th e r [ th e e mp loy er ] res p on d e d p ro m p tly an d effe c tiv ely to th e in c id en t.”)

. Betw een October20 05 and October20 07 , Vance fi l ed nu m erou s com p lai nt s abou t her trou blesom e enc ou nt ers w ith D av is a n d M c V ick er . B all St at e t oo k re as on ab le c or re c tiv e a c t i o n as V an c e lod ge d ea c h co m p lain t. In r es po ns e to Va nc e’ s co m pl ainttha t M cVickerus ed th e ra c ial ep it h et “n igg er ” a n d br ag ge d ab ou t h er fam ily connect ion s w ith t h e K u K lu x K l an, Bal lS tat e p rom p tly invest igated , involved th e ap p rop riate s up ervi sor y per sonnel, and iss u ed a w ri tte n re pri m and to M cVic ker

. A ccor ding to BallS tat e pol i cy, M cV ick er techni cal l y s houl d have r ec eived a st age - one or al w arn in g because she had no pri orco m pla i nts o n her re cord , yet the u niversity con clud ed that a m ore se r i o us measu r e was i n o r der

. The wri tt enwar ni ngc o nvey ed to M cVic kerthatherr aci ally offensi ve l anguage w oul d not be to l er ate d, and t w o supervi sor s m et wi thM cVi ck ers epa r atel y t o di sc us s th e m at te r . M ea nwhi l e, a s upe r vi so r r emai ne d i n c o nt ac t w ith Van ce a nd ass ured herthattheywere i nvest i gat i ng herco m pla i nt. Vance l odged two addit i ona l co m pla i nts a gainst M cVic kerduri ng thi s per i od, o ne i n N ove m ber5, 20 05, for refe rrin g t o h e r a s a “p or c h m on ke y” an d on e in A pri l20 07 f or s ay in g “ payback

. ” In re sponse to the 2 005N o. 08

- 3568 17

com pla i nt, Bal lS tat e a gain prom ptly inve sti gat ed, but a w i tness i denti fi ed by Vance co uld notco rr obo ra te that M cVic kerused the o ffensi ve te rm to r eferto Vance. Si m i l ar l y, Bal lS tat e uncov er ed com petin g versi ons of w hat t oo k p lac e in connect i on with Vance’ s 2 007 “payback ” com pla i nt. W hen Ball St ate questi oned M c Vick er abo u t the i nci dent, she counter
- com pla i ned that Vance sai d: “J ust the beginning bitch

— y o u b et te r wat chy o ur h ou se .” A gain, w e are t a k in g th e view of th ese facts th at favors Va nc e ; we e xp r e s s n o o pi ni o n ab o utwh at “ r e a l l y ” h a ppened. Fr om thatper specti ve, we assum e that M cVic ker m ade the al l ege d stat em ents. On t h e issue ofem plo yer li abilit y, how ever, w e m us t look at th e em p loyer’ s r e s p o n s e i n l i g h to fth e f a c t s i tf o u n d i n i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n. Se e P o r ter, 57 9 F
. 3d at 636 ( obs er vi ng tha t, “t ake n as a whol e, ” th e empl o y er “ to o ka ppr o pr i at e st eps t o b r i ng th e h ar as sm ent t o an end”)

. I t m ay be c om m onpla ce that ane m pl o y ee a cc us ed o fv erba l l y abus i ng or i nt i m i dat i ng a co w or kerdeni es the a l l ega ti on. But B al lS tat e di d w hat it c ou ld an d d id n ots t op by ac c ep tin g a sim p le d en ial. M or eo ve r, th e re c or d d oe s n o t r efle c t a sit u at ion in wh i ch al l ti e s we n tt o th e d i s c r i mi n a t o r ; i fi td i d , we w oul d be incl i ned to send thi s ca se to a j ury. Bal lS tate, ho wev er, c al ibr at ed i ts r espons es de pen di ngo n the si tuation . S om eti m es w hen i t was unsure w ho was at f aul t i t co unsel ed both em ployees; so m eti m es i t warned al l ege d w ro ngdoer s t o tak e ca re o r desi st. Vance co m pla i ned to her su p ervi sor s s eve ra lti m es ab o utDa vi s’ s co nduc t. The two mos t se r i o us a l l eg at i o ns18 N o. 08

- 3568

re l ate to the el evat ori nci dent i n 20 05 and the “ar e y ou s c a r e d” c o mm e nti n 2 0 0 7
. We no t e tha tV a nc e c o nc eded at her deposi ti on t h at she did notco m pla i n to Bal lS tat e ab ou t D av is’s u se of t h e te rm s “ Sa m b o” an d “B u c kw h ea t.” We t a k e V a nc e a th e r w o r d th a t, i n c o n t e x t, th e t e r ms “Sa m bo” and “ Bu ckwh eat ” w er e used as expli cit raci al sl u rs thatwould r equi re r em edi alm eas ures fro m an e mpl o y e r un de r Ti t l e VI I
. S ee D aniel s v. E ss ex Group, Inc. , 93 7 F.2 d 1 26 4, 12 66 (7 th C ir. 19 91 ) (n ot in g “ B u c kw h ea t” is a ra c ial ta u n t); Bo y d v . S t a t e F a r m Ins . Co. , 158 F.3d 32 6 n .1 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “ [ I ] n th e c o n t e x to fe mp l o y me n td i s c r i mi nati on l aw , the ter m ‘ Bu ckwh eat ’ i s g ener al l y c onsi dered to be a rac ialslur or ep ithet.”). U nd er Title VII, how ever, an em plo yer ’ s l i abi l i ty f orco w or ke r hara ssm ent i s no t t r i g g e r e d u nl e s s the e mpl o y e e n o t i fi e s the e mpl o y er about an i nstance o fr aci alhar ass m ent. B allState fi rst learned o f t h e Sept em ber 23, 2005, altercati on fro m Davi s, w hen she fi l ed a com pla i n t a ga i nst V an ce f o r s ay i ng, “ M o ve , b i tc h .

. . y o u a r e ane vi lf

-- -- -- b itc h .” L at er , Va n c e c om p lain ed th at D av is h ad sa id , “I’ll d o i ta g a i n, ” r e fe r r i n gt o , a c c o r d i n g to Va n c e , th e t i me i n 2 0 0 1 w h e n D a v i s s l a p p e d h e r . B a l lS t a t e i n v e s t i g a t e d, butb o thwomen stuckt o the i r s to r i es a nd de ni ed sa y i ng anythi ng o ffensi ve to the o ther

. Bal lS tat e’s r es ponse t o th is a lte rc at ion w as rea so n ab le. W e h av e sa id th at T itle V II i s “ ‘ not . . . a gener alci vi l i ty code’ and w e wil lnot fi nd l i ab i l i tyb as ed o n the ‘ spor adi c us e o fabus i ve l an guage . ’ ” Ford v. M inteq Shap es and Service s, Inc. , 58 7 F
. 3d 845, 84 8 ( 7t h C ir. 20 09) ( quoti ng Faragher v. City of B oca Raton , 5 24 U. S

. 7 75 , 7 88 ( 19 98 ) )

. F ac ed wi thc o m pet i ng com pla i nts, the fi rs t o fwh i ch w as l odged ag ain st Vance,N o. 08

- 3568 19 Bal lS ta te pur su ed a r ea so nabl e co ur se o factio n b y c o unsel i ng both em plo yee s about ci vi l i ty i n the w or kpl ace. Finally, after Van ce co m p laine d that Da vis said “are yo u sc ar ed ” t o h er in a Sou th er n a c c en t, B all St at e a ga in i nvest i gat ed

. A l though Davi s deni ed m aking the st ate
m ent, Bal lS tat e a gain f or m al l y warned Davi s o ra l l y t o re fra infrom su c h ac tio n s. T h is re s p on se w as rea so n ab le i n l i ght o fthe ci rcum sta nces. The c ater ingde par tm en t w as u nd ou bted ly an un p l ea sant p lace for V an ce b e t w een 2005 an d 2007. Yet th e record r e fl e c t s th a tB a l lS t a t e p r o mp t l y i nv e s t i g a t e d e a c h c o mpl ainttha t sh e fi l ed, c al ibr at i ngi ts r es po ns e to the r es ul ts o fth e in ve st i g at i o n a nd the s ev er i tyo fthe alle ge d co n d u c t. A s w e h av e s a i d be for e, p ro m p t in ve st iga tio n is th e “ h allm a r k o f rea so n ab le c or re c tiv e a c tio n .” Ce r r os II, 3 98 F.3 d a t 95 4. Thi s i s no t a ca se wher e th e em plo yerb eg an to i gnor e a n em plo yee ’ s co m pla i nts a s ti m e wento n. Ba l lS tate i nv es ti g at ed Van ce ’ s co m pl aint ag ai n s t D a v is in 20 07w ith th e s am e v igo r as it d id her com pla i nt i n 2005 . O f course , the i deal r esul t o fan empl o y ee ’ s co m pl aintwoul d b e th atthe ha r as sment ceas es. B ut Title VIIdoe s not req uire an em p loyer’ s re sponse to “succes sfully pr eve nt[ ] subse quent har ass men t, ” tho ugh i ts ho ul d be r e a s o nab l y c a l c ul a t e d t o do so. Cerros II

, 398 F. 3d at 954 (q u oting Savino v. C.P. Hall Co. , 1 9 9 F
. 3 d 9 2 5 , 9 33 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) )

. In th i s c a s e , we concl ud e that the un d isp uted f acts dem onst ra te that ther e i s no bas i s forem plo yerl i abi l i ty.20 N o. 08

- 3568 C Vance al so al l ege s that Bal lS tat e r eta l i ate d ag ai nst her f or c om p lai ni ng ab out the r aci alhar ass m ent b y r eas si gni ng herto m eni altask s, denyi ng hero ver ti m e ho urs, and unequ al l y d i sci plini ng her

. Em plo yer s m ay not pu ni sh em plo yee s forco m pla i ni ng ab out w or kpl ace c o nd uc ttha te v e n ar guab l y v i o l a t e s T i t l e V I I
. 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2 00 0e -3(a ); S i t a rv . In d i a n a Dep ’ to f Tr ans p. , 34 4 F. 3d 720, 72 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)

. To e stabl i sh a p ri m a facie case o fr eta l i ati on, a pla i nt iff m ay use e i therthe dir ect or in d ire c t m et h od of p ro o f

. V a n c e is p ro c ee d in g on ly und erthe i n d ire c t m etho d, w hi ch r equi re s herto sho w that ( 1) she engag ed i n a s tatutor i l y pr ote cted ac tiv i ty; (2) s h e perform ed her j ob acc ord ing to the em p loyer’ s ex pec ta ti o ns ; ( 3) s he s uffer ed ana dve r se e m pl o y m en t a c t i o n ; a n d ( 4 ) s h e wa s t r e a t e d l e s s f a v o r ab l y th a n a si m i lar ly sit u at ed em p loy ee . St ephe ns v. Er i cks on , 56 9 F
. 3d 777, 787 (7th C ir. 2009). Once the pl ai nti ffes tabli shes her prim a faci e case , the burden shi fts to the defen dant to es tabl i sha no n- i nv i di o us r ea so n fo r the a ct i o n. The burden then sh ifts back t o the pl ai nti ffto sho w that the defendant’s r eas on was pret extual

. Id. BallS tat e co nc ede s th atV an ce e ng ag ed i n a pr o te ct ed ac ti vi tya nd d oes not clai m Van ce’s w ork perform a n c e w as su b-p ar. O ur f o cus i s thus o n the fi na lt wo e l ement s o fVa nce’s prim a faci e case . I t i s pos sibl e fora pla i nti ffto es tabl ish a c l ai m o fr etal i ati on ba sed o n a change o fwork re sponsibi l i ti es,
“ de pend[ i ng ] o n ho w muc h o fa c ha ng e , a nd h o w di s a dvantag eous a chang e, to okpl ace. ” Si t ar, 34 4 F

. 3d at 727; se eN o. 08

- 3568 21 al so Her rnrei te r v. C hi. Hous. Auth

. , 31 5 F
. 3d 742, 74 4- 45 ( 7th C ir. 2002) (li sting ca ses). I n ord er to suc ceed , “ ‘a plaintiff m ust s how thata re aso nabl e e m p loyee w oul d have f ound the chal l enged ac ti on m ate ri al l y a dvers e. ’ ” Lapka v. C her toff , 5 17F
. 3d 974, 985 (7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( quo ting B url ington N
. & Santa Fe R y. C o. v. White, 54 8 U.S

. 53 , 68 ( 2006 ) )

. Genera l l y, i fthe chal l enged ac ti on would di sc o u r a g e o th e r e mp l o y e e s fr o m c o mp l a i n i n g ab o u te mp loy erco nd uct that v i ol ate s Ti tl e VI I, i t co nsti tutes an advers e e m p l oym ent a cti on. S ee B urlin gto n, 548 U
. S. at 57, 68

. Van ce ’ s st r o ng es t ar g um en t depi ct s an unus ual in

st an ce o fr eta l i ati on, i n w hi ch Bal lS tat e s i m ult aneously p rom o t e d her an d assigned her to d im inished w ork du ti es i n 200 7. The di str i ct c ourto bser ved thatwh ether Vanc e su ffer ed a m ate ri al l y a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on w as a c los e c al l , bu t itco n c lu d ed th at a j u ry co u ld concl ud e th at herr eas si gnm ent was m ate ri al l y a dvers e. Stil l, the d istri ct cou rt conc lud ed that Van ce ’s theory f ai l s be cause she di d not e stabl i sh thatshe w as tr eat ed l e s s f a v o r ab l y th a n a s i mi l a r l ys i t u a t e d e mp l o y e e . We agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourt, and concl ud e in ad dit i on th at V an c e c an n otsh ow th at sh e s u ffer ed a m at er ially adv er se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n. Vance co ncedes tha t her pr om oti on incl ud ed a m odest payr ai se a nd a s i gn ificanti nc r ea se i n b en efi ts
. S he ar gu es, however, thato nce pro m ote d she was ass i gned to m or e m en ial ta sk s. In p ar tic u lar , sh e ass er ts t h a t B all St ate as si gned herto cut veg etabl es and refi l lco nd i m ents, w hile e n tru sting h er cow orker, B rad H ut son, w ith m ore22 N o. 08

- 3568

com pli cate d task s s uch as prepar i ng co m ple te m eal s. W e reco gni ze that i t i s pos sibl e foran e m plo yerto re ta liat e c lan d es tin ely ag ain st an em p loy ee w h ile f o r mal l y pr o mot i ng he r, b ut the r e c o r d c a nn o tbe st re tc h ed t o su p p or t su c h a t h eo ry h er e. V an c e p er so n ally soughtou t th e new full

- ti m e pos i ti on; i t was herchoi ce to leav e the par t- ti m e pos i ti on wh er e s he bak ed often and w as gener al l y c onte nt with her w or k a ss i gnm ents. H erne w j o b i nc l ude d s o m e o fthe ta sks abo utwhi chs he i s co m pla i ni ng, bu t i t a l so i ncl ud ed a r ange ofo ther tas ks i ncl ud i ng prepari ng m or e co m pli cate d dishes

. W hi l e Vance m ay h av e b een di sappoi nted w i th hernew ass i gnm ents, consi deri ng the enti re conte xt ofherpro m oti on we concl ud e that no r atio n al j ury coul d find that sh e ex per i en ce d a mate r i al l y a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n. Put another w ay, we fi nd thata re aso nabl e per son w oul d not be di ssuaded fro m co m pla i ni ng ab ou t r ace disc ri m i nati on bywitnes si ng th e tre atm ent Vance re cei ved: a prom oti on to a full

- ti m e pos i ti on with acco m pan y i ngb en efi ts , a r ai se i n pa y, a nd

— ta kin g al lo f V an ce ’ s al l eg at i o ns a s true

— a ch an g e i n wo r ka ss i g nm ents that i ncl ud ed basi c sa l ad p re parat i on. Thi s ca se d oe s n otp re se n t th e p ro b lem w e e n c ou n te re d inWas hi ngt on v. Il l i nois D ep’ tof Re ve nue, 4 2 0 F.3d 658 (7th C ir. 2005 ) , wher e we r ev er se d a g r an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t b as ed on t h e n ot ion th at a c h an ge in w or k s c h ed u le that did notaffect sal ar y o r du ti es coul d not co nsti tute ana dve r se e m pl o y m ent a ct i o n. In Was hi ngt on , we obs er ved thatw h ile a r eas si gnm ent that doe s no t affec t payo r o ppo r tu ni ti es f o r pr o m o ti o n w il l “b y a nd lar ge ” n otbe ac tio n ab le for a re ta liat ion c laim u n d er T itleN o. 08

- 3568 23 VI I, “ ‘ by and l ar ge’ di ffer s fro m ‘ never . ’ ” Id. at 66 2. W he n, as i n that case , the em plo yerexpl oi ts a know n vul nerabi l i ty ofan e m plo yee

— th e pl ai nti ffther e r el i ed on her p re vio u sly es ta b lish ed flex -tim e s c h ed u le s o s h e c ou ld c a r e f o r h e r s o n, w h o h a d D o wns y n d r o me

— an al ter ed wo r ks c h e d u l e c a n c o n s t i t u t e a n a d v e r s e wo r ka ct i o n. Id. Even though a change i n as signm ents, l i ke an al ter ed w or k s chedule, co ncei vabl y m i ght a m ount t o an adver se empl o y m en t ac ti o n, Va nce m us t al l eg e m o r e th ana disl i ke f orhernew assi gnm ents ora pr efe rence f orher o l d o ne s f o r h e r c a s e t o g o f o r wa r d. A pp ro achi ng the i ssue as the di str i ct c ourtdi d, by ask i ng wh etherther e was a si m i l ar l y situated em plo yee , l ea ds to the s ame r es ul t. Onl y t wo e m pl o y ee s he l d the posi ti on o fa full

- ti m e c ate ring as si sta nt atthe ti m e o f th is disp ut e, V an ce an d H u tson
. Bot h em p loyees w ere prom ot e d t o tha t po s i t i o n o n the s a me da y, a nd f or the m ostpartbo th were ass i gned to the sam e ra n ge of d ut ies. W e a cce p t Va nc e’s all egation that their w ork ass ign m en ts w er e no t i denti cal, but the r eco rd r efl ects that they w ere assi gned to a substa nti al l y s i m i l arse t of t as ks . Th u s, ev en if V an c e h ad es ta b lis h e d t h at B all St ate s u b j ecte d her to a m ate ri al l y a dvers e a cti on, her cl ai m would f ai lbec ause she has notsa ti sfi ed the fi nal el em ent o fthe prim a faci e anal ysi s. Van ce a l so a ll eges tha t Bal lS ta te r et al i at ed byo ffer i ng h e r fe we r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o w o r ko v e r t i me h o u r s . We sa i d i n Le wis v. Ci ty of C hi cago , 496 F.3d 645 , 654 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) , th a tth e l o s s o fo p p o r t u n i t y t o w o r ko v e r t i me can am o untt o a n a dve r se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n. The24 N o. 08

- 3568 p arties agree tha t Va nc e w orked few er overtim e hou rs th an Br ad H ut so n i n 20 07
. Bal l S ta te defen ds byarguing that H utson i s no t s i m i l ar l y s i tuate d to Vance bec ause he w orked significant ly m ore regular hou rs tha n h er, w hich , as a cons eq ue nc e, m ad e h im available to w ork m or e o ver ti m e ho urs. Thi s i s in partbec ause BallS tat e ha s a “w or k c onti nuati on” pol i cy, wh i ch m andates that the e m plo ye e w ho be gan a ta sk that i s unfi ni shed at the e nd o fa s hi ftmus ts t a y a nd g e tthe t a s kc o mpl e t e d. T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s th a t V a n c e o ft e n t o o k F M LA l eave , cal l ed i n si ck unexp ecte dly, and l eft w or k e ar ly f o r he al thr ea son s. Va nc e do es no t di spu te tha t sh e wor k ed few er r egul arho ur s th anHuts o n. Ins te ad, s he ar gues that, bec ause she w as the m or e s eni orem plo yee , she s houl d have be en o ffer ed m or e op portunit i es to w or k o ver ti m e. S he adds, witho ut ci tat i on o r su p port, th at th e w or k c on tin u at ion p olic y B all St at e re l i e s o n is “v oid .” N eit h er o f th es e a rg u m en ts is av ailin g. E ve n if Vance had s en iori ty ove r H utson, the und i sputed f acts est abl i sh thattheydi d not w or k a co m parabl e num ber ofr egul arhours. Thu s, the tw o ar e no t s i m i l ar l y s i tuate d f orthe pu rpos e o fthi s a nal ysi s. Vance’ s a sse rt i on that th e wor kc o nt i nua ti o n po l i cyi s vo i d, wi th o utc i ting ev id en c e in th e re c or d , i s u n h e l p fu l. W e h av e re p ea te d ly sai d that a “n onm oving par ty cannot defe at a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent with bar e a l l ega ti ons. ” d el a R a ma v. Illin o is D ep’t o

f H um a n S ervic es , 541 F. 3d 681, 68 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Fi na l l y, V a nc e a r g ue s tha tBa l lS t a t e r e t a l i a t e d a g a i ns t her by i ssui ng her a ve rba lwarni ng f oral l ege dlyspl at-N o. 08

- 3568 25
ter i ng g ra vy on Davi s a nd s lam m i ng pots and pans on the c o un t e r . Al tho ugh we g i v e the c o nc e pto fa n a dve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n a ge n er ou s c on st ru c tio n, i t is n otth is b ro ad . Va n c e a p p ea rs to co n c ed e a s m u c h, alte rin g h er arg u m en t s ligh tly on ap p ea l to c laim th at B all St ate ’ s warni ng to Van ce a m ounts to tak i ng the si de of th os e w ho har ass ed her, wh i ch she see s a s r eta l i ati on th r o ug h the c r ea ti o n o fa mor e ho st i l e worke nv i r o nm en t. N o rea sonab l e j ury coul d find thatthe del i ver y o f a verba l w arn ing, bas ed on a com p lai n t from a cow orker, const i tutes an a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on or cr eat es an o bj ecti vel y ho sti l e workenvi ro nm ent. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

6- 3- 11