N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR GARET FR OB Y,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C LAR K C OUNTY SC H O OL DISTR IC T, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-16843 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01789-LR

H-PAL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 18, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ENNETT, *** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff M argare t Froby wa s e m ploy e d by De fe nda nt C la rk C ounty Sc hool Distric t (the Distric t) a s the princ ipa l for inm at e c l a sse s at the Flore n c e M c C lure 

# FIL ED
OCT 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa tion.W om e n’ s C orre c tiona l C e nte r of the Ne va da De pa rtm e nt of Prisons (NDOP) until August 2011. She

brought a Title VII se xua lly hostilee nvironm e nt c la im a ga inst the D istric t a

rising from

the c o nduc t of a

n NDOP c orre c tiona l offic e r, Lie ute na nt R obe rt He ndrix. 1 The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in the Distric t’ s favor. W e a ffirm
. 1. Whe n re vie wing a

sum m ary judgm e n t ruling, “we vie w the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , de te rm ine whe the r the re are
any ge n uine issue s of m a te ria l fa c t , a nd de c ide whe the r the distric t c ourt c orre c tly
a pplie d the re le va

n t substa ntive la w.” Animal Le

gal De f. Fund v . FDA , No. 13- 17131, 2016 W

L 4578362, a

t *1 (9th C ir. Se pt. 2, 2016) (e n ba n c ) (pe r c uriam ). The pa rty re s isting sum

m a ry judgm e nt ha s the burde n of produc ing e vide nc e “ suc h that a re a sona ble juror dra

w ing a ll infe re nc e s in fa

vor of the re sponde nt c ould
re turn a ve rdic t in there sponde nt’ s favor.” Re za v . Pe arc e , 806 F.3d 497, 505 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Unite d State s v . Shumw ay , 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th C ir. 1999)). Unde r the substa

ntive la wre le va n t he re :

“ An e m ploy e r is lia

ble unde r Title VII for c onduc t giving rise to a [se xua lly ] hostilee nvironm e nt whe re the e m ploy e e prove s (1) tha

t

1 Froby origina lly

brought a dditiona l c la im s a nd inc l ude d the NDOP a s a de fe nda nt but volunta

rily dism isse d the NDOP a

nd stipula te d to dismissa l of a ll c la im s a ga inst the Distric t othe r tha n he r Title VII c l a im
. 2[s] he wa s subje c te d to ve rba l or phy sic a l c onduc t of a ha ra ssing na

ture [be c a use of he r se x] , (2) tha

t this c onduc t wa s unwe lc om e , a nd (3) that the c onduc t wa s suffic ie ntly se ve re or pe rva s ive to a lte r the c onditions of the

vic tim ’ s e m

ploy m e nt a nd c re at e an

a busive working e nvironm e nt.” K

ortan v . C al. Youth Auth ., 217 F.3d 1104, 1109–10 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting Pav on v . Sw i ft Trans. C

o. , 192 F.3d 902, 908 (9th C ir. 1999)). Arizona e x re l. Horne

v . Ge o Grp., Inc

. , 816 F.3d 1189, 1206 (9th C ir. 2016). Furthe rm ore : While se xua l ha

ra ssm e nt m

ust be se xua l in na

ture , “ offe nsive c onduc t that is not fa c ia lly

se x-spe c ific none the l e ss m ay viola te Title VII if the re is suffic ie nt c irc um sta n tia l e vide n c e of qua lita

tive and qua ntita tive diffe re nc e s in the ha

ra s sm e nt suffe re d by

fe m a le and m a le e m ploy e e s.” EEOC

v . N at’l Educ . Ass’n, Alask

a , 422 F.3d 840, 842 (9th C ir.2005); se ealso Onc alev . Sundowne r Offshore Se r v s., Inc

. , 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (“ [H] ara ssing c o nduc t ne e d not be m otiva te d by se xua l de s ire to support a n infe re nc e of disc rim ination on the ba sis of se x.” ). Id. at 1207 n.12. 2.a. W ith one e x c e ption, thec onduc t c om pla i ne d of c onta ine d no ge nde rspe c ific e le m e nt. R a the r, Froby a sse rte d m ore ge ne ra lly

tha t He ndrix wa s a

“ bully ” w ho “ ta

rge t [e d] e duc a tion” and who tre ate d prisone rs “ ba dly .” The only ge nde r-re late d c onduc t wa s a re fe re nc e to the m o the r of his c hild a s a “ bitc h,” but that c om m e nt is not, without m

ore , suffic ie nt to a llow a

jury to infe r tha

t He ndrix’ s
ove rbe aring be havior wa s “ be c a use of se x .” Title VII is not a “ ge ne ra l c ivility ”

3c ode for the workpla c e . Faraghe r v . C ity of Boc a Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998). b. In opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt, Froby

pointe d to six inc ide nts during a ne arly two-y e ar pe riod. Those

inc ide nts, individua

lly and c olle c tive ly , we re ne ithe r se ve re e nough nor pe rva sive e nough to a lte r Froby ’ s working
c onditions a

nd c re a te an a

busive working e nvironm e nt. For e xam ple , He ndrix de nie d Froby

a c c e ss to thec orre c tiona l c e n te r’ s visitor room to m e e t an inm ate ’ s fam ily ; he argue d with Froby a bout inm ate s in the e duc ation depa rtm e nt; he le ft a voic e -m a il m e ssa ge in a

n obnoxious or upse

t tone ; a nd he re m ove d inm ate worke rs from the de pa rtm e nt without Froby ’ s knowle dge and y e lle d at the m for viola ting rule s. M ore ove r, He ndrix wa s not Froby ’ s supe rvisor.
c . The re c ord c onta ins no e vide nc e c onc e rning m a le e m p loy e e s or He ndrix’ s be h a

vior towa rd the m . Thus the re is no pe rm i ssible infe re nc e tha t He ndrix tre a te d m a le and fe m a le e m ploy e e s diffe re ntly . For tha t re a son, Froby ’ s
re lia nc e on EEOC

v . N EA , 422 F.3d 840 (9th C ir. 2005), is m ispla c e d; in tha

t c a se ,

“ [t] he re c ord re ve a l[e d] at le a s t a de bata ble que stion a s to the obje c tive diffe re nc e s in tre a t m e nt of m a le and fe m a le e m ploy e e s, a nd strongly

sugge st[e d] tha

t diffe re nc e s in subje c t ive e ffe c t s we re ve ry diffe re n t for m e n a n d wom e n.” Id. at 846. AFFIRM E D.

4