FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT April 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Cecilia M. Altonag a, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. [ P U B 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. 07- 10270

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 3 5 8 - CV - 2 - I PJ I N G R I D R E E V E S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C .H . R O B I N S O N W O R L D W I D E , I N C ., D e f e 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 f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l28, 2008) B e f o r e E DMON DS ON , C h i e f J u d g e , WI L S ON , C i r c u i tJ u d g e , a n d AL T ON AG A, * D i stri ctJudg e. W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

I n g r i d R e e v e s ap p e a l s th e e n try o f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n ti n f a v o ro f C . H. R ob i nson W orl dw i de, Inc. (“ C H R W ”) on her host i l e w ork env i ronm entse xu al ha r a s s m e ntc l a i m . W e m us tde t e r m i ne w he the rda i l y e xpos ur e t o l a ngua ge a nd r a di o pr ogr a m m i ng tha ta r e pa r t i c ul a r l y of f e ns i ve t o w om e n butnott a r ge t e d a tthe p la in tif f a r e s u f f ic ie n t to s a tis f

y th e “b a s e d o n ” a n d “s e v e r e o rp e r v a s iv e ” e le m e n ts of a hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e ntc l a i m . B e c a us e R e e ve s s a t i s f i e d the “ ba s e d on” el em entand a j ury c ou l d rea sonabl y c on cl ud e thatthe cond uctati ss ue w as s uf f i c i e nt l y pe r va s i ve t o s uppor ta hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e ntc l a i m , w e r e ve r s e the e n try o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in C H R W ’s f a v o r . I . B AC KG RO UN D In Jul y 200 1, R ee ves began w orki ng as a T ra nspo rt at i on S al es R e pr e s e nt a t i ve ( “ T S R ” ) i n C H R W ’ s B i r m i ngha m , A l aba m a br a nc h of f i c e . S he w a s the onl y f

e m a l e T S R i n the of

f i c e , a nd s he w or ke d i n a w or ks t a t i on pod cubi cl e nea r other T S R s. O nl y one other w om an w orked atthe B i rm i ng ham b r a n c h o f

f ic e , b u t h e rd e s k w a s n o t in R e e v e s ’s p o d . R ee ves a l l eges thatse xu al l y off ensi ve l angu age permeat ed the w ork envi ronm enti n h erpo d atC H R W every day . S he t es t i fi ed i n h erdepo si t i on that f r om the s um m e rof

2001 t o the s pr i ng of

2004, s he “ c oul d poi nta te ve ry da y of th e y e a rth a t s o m e o f

th is b e h a v io rw e n t o n . I t w e n t o n e v e ry d a y .” [ D o c . 1 2 - 3 : 7 ].3

S h e a s s e r ts , m o r e o v e r , th a t s e x u a lly e x p lic it r a d io p r o g r a m m in g p la y in g o n a d a ily ba s i s a nd he rone - t i m e e xpos ur e t o a pornogr aphi c i m a ge of a w om a n on a c ow or ke r ’ s c om put e ra l s o s uppor the rc l a i m . R e e ve s t e s t i f i e d tha tthe of

f e ns i ve l a ngua ge a nd r a di o pr ogr a m m i ng c ont i nue d e ve n a f t e rs he c om pl a i ne d t o c ow o rk ers an d h er su p erv i so r o n sev eral o ccasi o n s. O ne of R ee ves’ s c o-w orkers fr equent l y use d sexual l y c rude l angu age that offe nd ed her. T hi s e m pl oyee “ w as consi st ent , [a ] cr oss the bo ar d, day i n and day ou t , i n the se xu al l y off

ensi ve l angu age, ph ra se s, j ok es , song s, com m ent s, re m arks. ” [D oc. 12 -2: 41 ] . H e oft en used the ph ra se “ fucki ng bi t ch” or “ fucki ng w ho re ” a ft er h a n g in g u p th e p h o n e , [ i d. a t 4 2 , 5 0 ]; h e o n c e c a lle d th e o n ly o th e rf e m a le em pl oyee i n the offi ce a “ bi t ch” a ft ershe had l ef tthe room , and h e once re m arked thatshe had “ a bi g ass . ” [I d. at4 4 ] . S ex u al j o k es b y th i s co -w o rk er w ere al so c om m onpl a c e , i nc l udi ng one f orw hi c h the punc h- l i ne w a s “ f uc k y ours i s t e ra nd your m other i s aw ho re . ” [I d. a t 4 9 - 5 0 ]. F in a lly , h e o n c e s a id , “s h e ’s a c u n t,” r e f e rr i ng t o a f

e m a l e . [ D oc . 12- 3: 10] . R e e ve s c om m uni c a t e d t o thi s c o- w or ke ron m ul t i pl e oc c a s i ons tha tthe l a ngua ge m a de i tdi f f i c ul tf orhe rt o w or k, butthe e m p lo y e e d id n o t c h a n g e h is b e h a v io r . A nothe rc o- w or ke ra l s o of f e nde d R e e ve s w he n he us e d s e xua l l y c rude l angu age. R ee ves overhear d thi s e m pl oyee t al k abo ut(1) “ gett i ng off” i n ref er ence4

to m a s tu rb a tio n , [ i d. at 1 ], (2 ) a so n g th at re fe re n ce d “w o m en ’s teeth o n a m an ’s di ck, ” [ i d. ], a n d ( 3 ) a n e x p e r ie n c e in a h o te l w ith n a k e d w o m e n , [ i d. a t1

– 2 ] . On th e d a y b e f

o r e th is c o - w o r k e r ’s la s t d a y a t th e o f f ic e , m o r e o v e r , R e e v e s w a s to ld th a t s h e s h o u ld b r in g e a rp lu g s to w o r k th e n e x t d a y b e c a u s e th e c o - w o r k e rh a d s a id th a t h e c o u ld b e h a v e h o w e v e rh e w a n te d o n h is la s t d a y . [ I d. at1] . R ee ves te s tif ie d th a t th e c o - w o r k e r ’s la s t d a y “w a s ju s t lik e a n y o th e rd a y : f u ll o f s e x u a lly offe nsi ve re m arks, com m ent s, st ori es , conv er sa t i on , l angu age— j ustl i ke any other day . . . . ” [I

d. ]. T he br a nc h m a na ge r , w ho w a s R e e ve s ’ s di r e c ts upe r vi s or , a l s o m a de com m ent s thatoffe nd ed R ee ves. H e once re fe rr ed t o a form erfe m al e c o-w orker as a “ l az y, go od -f

or-nothi ng bi t ch, ” [ D oc. 12 -2: 52 ] , and ano ther t i m e a sked R ee ves t o “ t a l k t o tha ts tupi d bi t c h on l i ne f our , ” r e f e rr i ng t o a f

e m a l e c us t om e r . [ D oc . 12- 3 : 5 ] . H e o n ce sai d , referring t o th e o n l y fem al e em p l o yee o th er th an R eev es,

“ [ s ] he m a y be a bi t c h, buts he c a n r e a d, ” [ D oc . 12- 2: 167] , a nd on a nothe roc c a s i on sa i d “ [s ] he’ s gota bi g o ne, ” [ i d. ] , re fe rr i ng t o h erbu tt ocks. R ee ves oft en c om pl a i ne d t o the br a nc h m a na ge raboutboth hi s us e of of f e ns i ve l a ngua ge a nd the u se o f su ch l an g u ag e i n th e o ffi ce g en eral l y. R e e ve s w a s a l s o of

f e nde d by a r a di o pr ogr a m tha tw a s pl a y e d e ve ry m orni ng on the s t e r e o i n the of

f i c e . D i s c us s i ons of

the f ol l ow i ng m a t e r i a l on the s how5

of f e nde d he r : ( 1) br e a s ts i z e of f e m a l e c e l e br i t i e s a nd P l a y boy P l a y m a t e s ; ( 2) s e x u a l a r o u s a l a n d w o m e n ’s n ip p le s a s in d ic a tio n s th e r e o f ; ( 3 ) m a s tu rb a tio n , b o th in g e n e r a l a n d w ith a n im a ls ; ( 4 ) e r o tic d r e a m s ; ( 5 ) e ja c u la tio n ; a n d ( 6 ) f

e m a le p o rn o g r ap h y . [ I

d. a t14–18] . A dve r t i s e m e nt s f orori nc l udi ng the f

ol l ow i ng m at eri al th atw ere ai red d u ri n g th e p ro g ram al so o ffen d ed h er: (1 ) sex u al fav o rs; (2) abi ki ni cont es tthati nstruct ed w om en t o w ea r thei r m ostpervers e bi ki ni s; (3) a s t a t e m e nttha ta w om a n w a s f ound i n be d w i th thr e e e l ve s a nd a c a ndy c a ne ; a nd (4) adrug ca l l ed P rot on thatprom i se d t o i ncre as e s exual perf orm ance , pl ea se a partner, and m ake the usera “ se xu al tyr anno saurus re x. ” [I d. at19 -21] . W hen R e e v e s c o m p la in e d ab o u t th e r a d io p r o g r a m m in g , s h e w a s o f te n to ld th a t s h e c o u ld p l ay h er o w n m u si c o r ch an g e th e st at i o n . S h e t est i fi ed , h o w ev er, th ati f sh e d i d so th e o th e re mp l o y e e s w o u l d s o o n c h a n g e th e r a d i o b a c k t o th e o f f e n s i v e p r o g r a m. T he branch m anager t es t i fi ed i n h i s deposi t i on thathe had u se d, and h ea rd othe r s us e , the t e r m “ bi t c h” i n the of f i c e . H e c oul d notr e c a l l he a r i ng a ny one i n the of f i c e us e “ w hor e ” i n a s e xua l c ont e xt . H e de ni e d he a r i ng a nye m pl oy e e us e the wo r d “ c u n t ” b u te s t i m a t e d th a tth e wo r d “ d i c k ” wa s u s e d ab o u to n c e a we e k . He a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d one ortw o t a l ks w i th one of R e e ve s ’ s c o- w or ke r s about l angu age, and m ent i on ed l angu age t o o thers du ri ng perf orm ance eval uat i on s a ft er R e e v e s c o m p la in e d .6

R e e ve s r e s i gne d f

r om C H R W on M a r c h 24, 2004. I n F e brua ry 2006, s he f i l e d a c om pl a i nta ga i ns tC H R W a l l e gi ng i n pa r ttha tthe us e of s e xua l l y of

f e ns i ve l angu age c re at ed a host i l e w ork env i ronm enti n v i ol at i on of T i t l e V II . T he di stri ct courtent er ed sum m ary j ud gm entfor C H R W on the grou nd thatthe al l eged h a r a s s m e n t w a s n o t “b a s e d o n ” R e e v e s ’s s e x . O n appe a l , R e e ve s a s s e r t s tha t , c ontr a ry t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s oni ng, w he the rthe a l l e ge dl y ha r a s s i ng l a ngua ge w a s di r e c t e d a tthe pl a i nt i f f i s not d e te r m in a tiv e o f

w h e th e rth e p la in tif

f w a s s u b je c te d to a h o s tile w o r k e n v ir o n m e n t. C H R W ar gu es thatw e s ho ul d aff i rm the di stri ctcourtbecause m en and w om en w er e s ubj ec t ed t o the sa m e behavi or i n the offi ce . A l t ernat i vel y, C H R W ar gu es tha tthi s C our ts houl d a f f i r m on the gr ound tha tthe ha r a s s m e ntw a s nots e ve r e or pervas i ve. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt , vi e w i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty . Cha m bl es s v . L ouis i ana- P ac i

f i c C or p. , 48 1 F . 3d 13 45 , 13 49 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). S um m ary j u d g m en ti s ap p ro p ri at e “ i f th e p l ead i n g s, d ep o si t i o n s, an sw ers t o i n t erro g at o ri es, a nd a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty is e n title d to7

j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). T he party opp osi ng sum m ary j udgm e ntm us tm a ke “ e nough of a s how i ng tha tthe j ury c oul d r e a s onabl y f i nd f or thatparty. ” W

alke rv . D ar by , 91 1 F . 2d 15 73 , 15 77 (11th C i r. 19 90 ).

I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T i t l e V II of the C i vi l R i gh t s A ctof 19 64 , 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e e t s e q. , pr ohi bi t s e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on on the ba s i s of “ r a c e , c ol or , r e l i gi on, s e x, or nat i on al ori gi n. ” I

d. § 2 00 0e-2(a) (1). T he grou nd for aT i t l e V II se xu al h a r a s s m e n t c la im c a n b e e ith e ra ta n g ib le e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n o r , a s R e e v e s a s s e r ts here , the “ cr ea t i on of a host i l e w ork env i ronm entcaused by se xu al hara ss m entthat i s s uffi ci ent l y s ever e or pervasi ve t o al t erthe t erm s a nd cond i t i on s of w ork. ” B aldw i n v . B lue C r os s/

B lue Shi e ld of

A la. , 4 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. deni ed , — U . S . — , 128 S . C t . 499, — L . E d. 2d. — ( 2007) . A n e m pl oy e e c a nnot r e c ove runde rthe hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e ntthe ory unl e s s s he s how s tha t( 1) s he bel on gs t o a prot ec t ed grou p; (2) s he has been s ubj ec tt o u nw el com e s exual ha r a s s m e nt ; ( 3) the ha r a s s m e ntw a s ba s e d on he rm e m be r s hi p i n a pr ot e c t e d gr oup; ( 4) the ha r a s s m e ntw 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 e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of

he re m pl oy m e nta nd c r e a t e a n abus i ve w or ki ng e nvi r onm e nt ; a nd ( 5) a b a s is f o rh o ld in g th e e m p lo y e rliab le e x is ts . Mendo za v. B orden, Inc. , 195 F . 3d 1238, 1245 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . T he onl y e l e m e nt s a ti s s ue he r e a r e the8

“b a s e d o n ” a n d “s e v e r e o rp e r v a s iv e ” e le m e n ts . A . “ B a s e d on” T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as d ecl ared th ati n h o st i l e w o rk en v i ro n m en tcases, “‘[ t]h e c r itic a l is s u e . . . is w h e th e rm e m b e r s o f o n e s e x a r e e x p o s e d to di sa dv ant ageous t erm s or c on di t i on s of e m pl oym entt o w hi ch m em bers of the other se x are no texpo se d. ” O ncal e v . Su ndow ner O f f shore Servs . , Inc. , 523 U . S . 75, 80, 118 S . C t . 998, 1002, 140 L . E d. 2d 201 ( 1998) ( quot i ng H a r r is v . Fo rklift S

ys ., Inc. , 5 1 0 U .S . 1 7 , 2 5 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 3 6 7 , 3 7 2 , 1 2 6 L . E d . 2 d 2 9 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( G in s b u r g , J ., c o n c u rr in g ) ) . T h u s , to s a tis f y th e “b a s e d o n ” e le m e n t, a p la in tif f m u s t e s s e n tia lly s how “ ‘ tha ts i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d pe r s ons notof [ he r ] s e x w e r e tr e a t e d di f f e r e nt l y a nd bett er . ’ ” B a ldw in , 480 F . 3d a t1302 ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ( quot i ng Men do za , 195 F . 3d at12 54 n. 3 (E dm on dson , J. , concurri ng )) . T he s pe c i f

i c que s t i on tha tf

a c e s us he r e i s w he the rha r a s s m e nti n the f or m of offe nsi ve l angu age c an be “ base d o n” the pl ai nt i ff’ s m em bers hi p i n a prot ec t ed grou p even w hen the pl ai nt i ff w as no tthe t ar getof the l angu age a nd other e m pl oy e e s w e r e e qua l l y e xpos e d t o the l a ngua ge . W e not e d i n B a ldw in that“ se x spec i fi c” profani ty, i ncl ud i ng w ords such as “ bi t ch, ” “ tra m p, ” a nd “ sl ut , ” i s “ m ore degradi ng t o w om en than t o m en” a nd thu s “ m aybe consi dere d, for w hat everTh edis tric t c ourt did no t ha vethebene fit of

thi s re a so ningfrom Ba ldw in be c a us eit 1 entered summary

judgment for CHRW before w e dec ided Ba ldw in . Simi larly , in

Rogers v. E.E.O .C. , 454 F.2d 234, 236 ( 5th Cir. 1972), disapproved of on 2 other grounds , E.E.O.C. v. She ll Oil Co. , 466 U.S. 54, 104 S. C t. 1621, 80 L . Ed. 2d 41 (1984), the former F ifth Circuit considere d an optometrist employee’ s Title VIIclaim base d on the employer’ s segreg ation of patients from a minority group of which the employee w as a member. Id. The Court dec lare d that the employer’ s failureto intentionally direc t any

discriminatory treatment toward the employee w as “not material.” Id. at 239. Se eals o , Busby v. City of 9 w ei gh t[i thas] on the se xu al hara ss m entsc al es . ” I d. a t1302. T hough w e ha ve

1 ne ve re xpl i c i t l y he l d tha ts uc h “ s e x s pe c i f i c ” l a ngua ge s a t i s f

i e s the “ ba s e d on” e l e m e nti n a s e xua l ha r a s s m e nthos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e ntc a s e e ve n w he n the l angu age does nott ar getthe pl ai nt i ff , w e do so t od ayi n l i gh tof ou r r ac ed is c r im in a tio n c a s e s . Iti s w el l es t abl i shed thatra ci al l y off ensi ve l angu age need notbe t ar get ed at the pl a i nt i f

f i n or de rt o s uppor ta T i t l e V I I hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e ntc l a i m . F or e xa m pl e , i n W

alke rv . For d MotorC o. , 684 F . 2d 1355 ( 11th C i r . 1982) , the pl a i nt i f f , a bl a c k m a l e , w ho ha d j us tbe gun w or ki ng a s a tr a i ne e a ta c a rde a l e r s hi p, c l a i m e d tha tothe re m pl oy e e s r e pe a t e dl y us e d of f e ns i ve r a c i a l e pi the t s , i nc l udi ng r e f e r e nc e s t o poor l y r e pa i r e d c a r s a s “ ni gge r - r i gge d” a nd t o the s a l e s m a n w i th the l ow es tsa l es vo l um e a s “ the bl ac k ass . ” I d. at13 58 . W e c on cl ud ed thatthe fa ct tha tm a ny of

the e pi the t s w e r e notdi r e c t e d a tW a l ke rw a s notde t e r m i na t i ve because the offens i ve l angu age w as oft en used i n W al ker’ s pre se nce a ft erhe had v o ic e d o b

je c tio n s . I

d. at13 59 n. 2. T he haras sm entthatW al ker e xp er i ence d w as

2Orlando , 931 F.2d 764, 785 ( 11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (re iteratingthe W alker principle). Our sister c ircuits have also recognized the importance of this principle, for both the 3 “base d on” and “ severe or pervasive”elements, a nd in both the rac e- a

nd sex-discrimination contexts. See, e .g. , Jennings v. Univ. of North Carol ina , 482 F.3d 686, 695 (4th Cir.) (en ba nc) (“[S] exually

charg ed comments . . . even if not direc ted spec ifically to the plaintiff, arerelevant to determiningwhether

the plaintiff wa s subjected to sex-based ha rassment.” ), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 128 S. C t. 247, — L . Ed. 2d — (2007); Jack son v. Quane

x Corp. , 191 F.3d 647, 660 (6 th C ir . 1 99 9) (“ [O]f

fens ivec omm e ntsne e d n ot b edire c te d at a plaintif f in o rde r to c on stitut e c on du c t vi olatingTi tleVII .” ); Mo nte iro v . Temp eUn ion Hi gh Sch. Di

st. , 158 F.3d 1022, 1 0 3 3

– 3 4 (9 thC i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g W alker for the proposition that “racist attac ks need not be direc ted at the c omplainant in order to create a hostile . . . environment”). 10 “ base d o n” hi s r ac e bec ause the “ ra ce spec i fi c” l angu age thatw as used w as pa r t i c ul a r l y of

f e ns i ve t o hi m a s a bl a c k m a l e , r e ga r dl e s s of w hom the l a ngua ge t a r ge t e d. 3 O ur W alke rr e a s oni ng c a n c orr e c t l y be e xt e nde d he r e . T he l a ngua ge i n the C H R W o f

f ic e in c lu d e dth e “s e x s p e c if ic ” w o r d s “b itc h ,” “w h o r e ,” a n d “c u n t” th a t, un der B a ldw in , m a y be m or e de gr a di ng t o w om e n tha n m e n. T he s ubj e c tm a tt e rof th e c o n v e r s a tio n s a n d jo k e s th a t a lle g e d ly p e r m e a te d th e o f f ic e o n a d a ily b a s is i n cl u d ed m al e an d fem al e sex u al an at o m y, m astu rb at i o n , an d fem al e p o rn o g rap h y, a ll o f w h ic h w a s d is c u s s e d in a m a n n e rth a t w a s s im ila r ly m o r e d e g r a d in g to w o m e n th a n m e n . T h e r a d io p r o g r a m m in g th a t R e e v e s c la im s w a s a ls o s im ila r . T here fore , even i f s uch l angu age w as used i nd i sc ri m i nat el y i n the offi ce such that m e n a nd w om e n w e r e e qua l l y e xpos e d t o the l a ngua ge , the l a ngua ge ha d a d i scri m i n at o ry effect on R eev es b ecau se o f i t s d eg rad i n g n atu re. A cco rd i n g l y, j u st a s the l a ngua ge i n W

alke rw as suff

i ci entt o sup po rtW al ker’ s host i l e w ork11

e n v ir o n m e n t c la im b e c a u s e it p a r tic u la r ly o f f e n d e d W a lk e ra s a b la c k m a n , w e h o ld tha tthe e vi de nc e R e e ve s pr e s e nt e d w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o s ur vi ve s um m a ry j udgm e nton th e “b a s e d o n ” e le m e n t h e r e . C H R W a r g u e s th a t w e s h o u ld n o t lo o k to r a c e c a s e s h e r e b e c a u s e , “r a c e is d if f e r e n t” th a n s e x . I n th e T itle V I I c o n te x t, h o w e v e r , C H R W ’s a r g u m e n t is s im p ly m is p la c e d . W e h a v e m a d e it ab u n d a n tly c le a rth a t [ s ] e xua l ha r a s s m e ntw hi c h c r e a t e s a hos t i l e orof f e ns i ve e nvi r onm e nt for m em bers of on e s ex i s e verybi tthe arbi tra rybarr i ert o sexual e q u a lity a t th e w o r kp la c e th a t r a c ia l h a r a s s m e n t is to r a c ia l e q u a lity . S urel y, a r equi re m entthata m an or w om an run a gaun t l etof se xu al abuse i n return for the pri vi l ege of bei ng al l ow ed t o w ork and m ake a l i vi ng ca n b e a s dem ea ni ng and d i sc on ce rt i ng as the hars hestof ra ci al ep i th et s. H enson v. C i t

y of D un dee , 6 8 2 F. 2 d 8 9 7 , 9 0 2 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 8 2 ) . Th e Su p r e me C ou rt , m oreover, drew up on ra ce di sc ri m i nat i on ca se s w hen i thel d thatT i t l e V II covered host i l e w ork env i ronm entcl ai m s a nd has “ fol l ow ed the l ea d o f s uch cas es in a tte m p tin g to d e f

in e th e s e v e r ity o f

th e o f f e n s iv e c o n d itio n s n e c e s s a ry to const i tut e a ct i on abl e s ex di sc ri m i nat i on un der the st atut e. ” Far aghe rv . C i t y of B oc a R aton , 5 2 4 U .S . 7 7 5 , 7 8 7 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 2 2 7 5 , 2 2 8 3 , 1 4 1 L . E d . 2 d 6 6 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , the S upr e m e C our tha s not e d tha ti ti s pr ope rf orus a s w e de c i de se xu al hara ss m entca se s t o d ra w “ on st andards devel op ed i n cas es i nv ol vi ng ra ci al hara ss m ent . ” I

d. a t 7 8 7 n .2 , 1 1 8 S . C t. a t 2 2 8 3 n .2 . A c c or di ngl y , w e s e e no r e a s on12

t o anal yz e the “ base d o n” el em entdi ff er ent l y her e than w e w ou l d i n a ra ce d is c r im in a tio n c a s e . H a v in g c o n c lu d e d th a t R e e v e s s a tis f ie d th e “b a s e d o n ” e le m e n t, w e tu rn to th e “s e v e r e o rp e r v a s iv e ” e le m e n t. B . “ S ever e or P ervasi ve” C H R W a r gue s tha te ve n i f the ha r a s s m e ntw a s “ ba s e d on” R e e ve s ’ s s e x, s um m a ry j udgm e ntw a s appr opr i a t e be c a us e , a s a m a tt e rof l a w , the ha r a s s m e nt w a s nots 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 e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of R e e v e s ’s e m p lo y m e n t. W e d is a g r e e . T he “ se vere or pervas i ve” e l em ent“ t es t s the m ett l e of m ostse xu al hara ss m entcl ai m s. ” G u p ta v . Fla . B d . o

f R eg e n ts , 21 2 F . 3d 57 1, 58 3 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) . T h u s , w h e n p r o p e r ly ap p lie d , th is e le m e n t w ill “f ilte ro u t c o m p la in ts a tt a c ki ng the or di na ry tr i bul a t i ons of the w orkpl a c e , s uc h a s the s por a di c us e of abusi ve l angu age, gend er -r el at ed j ok es , and o cc as i on al t ea si ng . ” Farag her , 524 U .S . a t 7 8 8 , 1 1 8 S . C t. a t 2 2 8 4 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T h e e le m e n t is on l y s at i sf

i ed, m oreover, “ [w ] hen the w orkp l ac e i s perm ea t ed w i th d i sc ri m i nat ory i nt i m i dat i on , ri di cul e, and i nsul t . ” H a r r is , 5 1 0 U .S . a t 2 1 , 1 1 4 S . C t. a t 3 7 0 . T he “ s e ve r e orpe r va s i ve ” e l e m e nt“ i nc l ude s a s ubj e c t i ve a nd a n obj e c t i ve com po nent . ” Men do za , 19 5 F . 3d at12 46 . W e have no d ou btthatR ee vesAg ain, our sister c ircuits agreewith us concerningthis propositi on. See, e .g. , E. E. O. C. 4 v. W C& M Enters., Inc . , 496 F.3d 393, 400 ( 5th Cir. 2007) (“Under the totality of the circumstances test, a

singleincident of ha

rassment, if suff

iciently severe, could g ive rise to a viable Title VIIclaim as we ll as a continuous patter n of much less severe inc idents of ha ra ssm e nt. ” ); Te rry

v . A sh c ro ft , 3 36 F .3 d 1 28 , 1 48 (2 d Cir. 20 03 ) (re c ognizingtha t th ete st i s f o r “ qu al i ty or

quantity” of ha

rassment (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Cerros v. Steel Techs., Inc. , 288 F.3d 1040, 1047 ( 7th Cir. 2002) (“[A] sufficiently severe episode may

occur as ra rely as once , while a relentless patter n of lesser

hara ssment that ext ends ov e r a longperi od

of tim ealsovio late s th estatut e .”(c itatio n o mitte d) ); Bowen v. M issouri Dep’t 13 s u b je c tiv e ly p e r c e iv e d th e h a r a s s m e n t to b e s u f f ic ie n tly s e v e r e o rp e r v a s iv e to vi ol at e T i t l e V II . T he qu es t i on before us i s w hether thatperc ept i on w as obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e a s am att erof l aw such thatthe di stri ctcourt ap p r o p r ia te ly e n te r e d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in C H R W ’s f a v o r . W e m us tj udge the obj e c t i ve s e ve r i ty of the ha r a s s m e ntf

r om the pe r s pe c t i ve of a r e a s onabl e pe r s on i n R e e ve s ’ s pos i t i on, c ons i de r i ng the t ot a l i ty of the c ir c u m s ta n c e s r a th e rth a n a c ts in is o la tio n . I d. A s w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d , th is in q u iry is s o m e w h a t f

a c t- in te n s iv e , i d. , butthe S upr e m e C our tha s i de nt i f i e d the f o llo w in g f

o u rf a c to r s to g u id e u s in o u ra n a ly s is : ( 1 ) th e f r e q u e n c y o f

th e c o n d u c t; ( 2) the s e ve r i ty of

the c onduc t ; ( 3) w he the rthe c onduc ti s phy s i c a l l y thr e a t e ni ng or hu m i l i at i ng , or a m er e off ensi ve ut t er ance ; and (4) w hether the cond uct u n r e a s o n ab ly in te r f

e r e s w ith th e e m p lo y e e ’s jo b p e r f o r m a n c e . Farag her , 5 2 4 U . S. at78 7– 88 , 11 8 S . C t . at22 83 . Im po rt ant l y, no si ng l e f ac t or i s det erm i nat i ve, H a r r is , 510 U . S . a t23, 114 S . C t . a t371, a nd ei thersev eri ty orp erv asi v en ess ca n s a tis f y th e e le m e n t, if

s u f f ic ie n t. See Men do za , 195 F . 3d a t1247–48. 4of S

oc . S e rv s. , 311 F.3d 878, 884 ( 8th Cir. 2002) (“A c laimant need only establish discriminatory conduct which is either per vasive or severe .”); Smith v. Norwest Fin. Acceptanc e, Inc . , 129 F.3d 1408, 1413 (10th Cir. 1997) (“ The [Supreme Court’s] test is a disj unctive one, requiringthat the hara ssing c onduct be suff iciently perva sive or

sufficiently

severe . . . .”) . 14 1. Fre qu ency F or nearl y three ye ar s, C H R W em pl oyee s a l l egedl y use d “ se x speci fi c” l angu age i n R ee ves’ s pre se nce e veryday a nd the offens i ve ra di o p rogram w as p laye d ev er y m o rn in g . T h e f re q u en cy fa cto r th u s u n d o u b ted ly w eig h s in R ee v es ’s f a v o r . 2 . Se v e r ity A s f ors e ve r i ty , the w or ds a nd phr a s e s tha tw e r e us e d f a l l va r i ous l y on the spec trum of l angu age thati s part i cul ar l y off ensi ve t o w om en. R ather than con si der the s e ve r i ty of

e a c h i ns t a nc e of

a l l e ge d ha r a s s m e nt , how e ve r , w e m us tde t e r m i ne the s e ve r i ty of

a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s t a ke n t oge the r . I ti s a r guabl y s e ve r e f orthe s o le w o m a n in a w o r kp la c e to b e e x p o s e d to : ( 1 ) th e w o r d s “c u n t” a n d “w h o r e ;” ( 2) vul ga rr e f

e r e nc e s t o s e xua l a c t s s uc h a s “ a w om a n’ s t e e th on a m a n’ s di c k” a nd “f u c k y o u rs is te r ;” a n d ( 3 ) c o n v e r s a tio n s c o n c e rn in g e ja c u la tio n , m e n ’s e r o tic d r e a m s , f e m a le s e x u a l a n a to m y , s o u r c e s a n d in d ic a tio n s o f f e m a le s e x u a l a r o u s a l, and fem al e porno graphy. B ec ause the al l eged cond uctw as never di re ct ed at R ee ves, ho w ever , w e c anno tsa y thatthe nature of the ov er al l hara ss m enthere w as a s o b je c tiv e ly s e v e r e a s th e c o n d u c t th a t w e a n d o u rs is te rc ir c u its h a v e p r e v io u s lyOur re asoningin W alker makes c lear

that whether

offensive languag e is direc ted at the 5 plaintiff is not determinative, even in the “severeor per vasive”analysis. See W

alker , 684 F.3d at 13 58 , 1 35 9 n .2 ; see als o , case s cited su pra , note 3. Be causethis factor require s that we c onsider whether the ha rassingconduct wa s 6 p hys i ca l ly

thre at en i n g or

humiliating, we agreewith the Four th Circuit that the absenc e of physical threa

ts “is in no way

dispositi ve, when thereis sufficient evidence f rom which a rea sonable jury

could conc lude that alleg edly hara ssing c onduct was otherwise humiliating.” W hitev . B FI W as teServ s. , LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 298–99 n.6 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). 15 d e e m e d a c tio n ab le u n d e rth e s e v e r ity f a c to r . See Men do za , 1 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 6

– 5 2 . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha t , w hi l e i ti s notde t e r m i na t i ve , the s e ve r i ty f a c t or 5 w e ig h s a g a in s t R e e v e s . 3. P hys i c al l

y T hr e ate ni ng orH

um i l i at i ng N othi ng oc c urr e d i n the of f i c e tha tw a s phy s i c a l l y thr e a t e ni ng. 6 N everthel es s, a j ury c ou l d fi nd thatthe l angu age a nd ra di o p rogram m i ng cr ea t ed an obj e c t i ve l y hum i l i a t i ng w or k e nvi r onm e nt , pa r t i c ul a r l y be c a us e R e e ve s w a s the onl y w om a n i n the w or ks t a t i on pod. G i ve n the c onduc tde s c r i be d i n ourdi s c us s i on o f th e s ev er ity f

ac to r, itis o b

jectiv ely r ea so n ab le th at a w o m an in R ee v es ’s p o s itio n w o u ld h a v e f

e lt h u m ilia te d in s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s . R e e v e s ’s e x p o s u r e to the pornogr aphi c i m a ge on he rc o- w or ke r ’ s c om put e ra l s o c ontr i but e d t o the o b je c tiv e ly h u m ilia tin g e n v ir o n m e n t. T he hu m i l i at i ng atm osph er e i s f urther r evea l ed i n the w arni ng thatR ee ves re ce i ved from a c o-w orker w ho used offe nsi ve l angu age c on ce rni ng another16

o ffen si v e co -w o rk er’ s l astd ay o f w o rk . T h e earp l u g s co m m en tsu g g est s th atth o se w ho used derogat ory l angu age i n the offi ce kn ew thatthei r c on du ctm ade R ee ves un com fort abl e, and p erhaps even i nt ended t o d o so. Iti s c ert ai nl y r ea sonabl e that s u c h tr e a tm e n t w o u ld b e h u m ilia tin g f o ra w o m a n in R e e v e s ’s p o s itio n . A c c o r d in g ly , th is f

a c to rw e ig h s in R e e v e s ’s f a v o r , d e s p ite th e la c k o f p h y s ic a lly th r e a te n in g c o n d u c t. 4. U nreasona bl e I

nt er f er ence w i th Job P er

f orm an ce F i nal l y, w e bel i eve thata j ury c ou l d p roperl y c on cl ud e thatthe cond uct u n r e a s o n ab ly in te r f

e r e d w ith R e e v e s ’s jo b p e r f o r m a n c e . C H R W a r g u e s th a t th is fa ct or shou l d w ei gh i n i t s f avor because R ee ves r ec ei ved p osi t i ve performance re vi ew s a nd w as gi ven si gn i fi ca ntre spon si bi l i t i es . A s the S up re m e C ou rtdecl ar ed i n H a r r is , how e ve r , the c onduc ti n que s t i on ne e d notha ve t a ngi bl y a f f e c t e d the p la in tif f’s jo b p e r f

o r m a n c e in o r d e rto b e a c tio n ab le . H a r r is , 510 U . S . a t22, 114 S . C t . a t371. R e e ve s t e s t i f i e d tha tthe c onduc tm a de i tdi f f i c ul tt o c onc e ntr a t e on w or k a nd c a us e d he rt o l e a ve the pod a nd s t a nd i n the ha l l w a y . S he c l a i m s tha ts he star ted to sh ak e w h en sh e s aw th e p o rn o g ra p h ic im ag e o n h erco -w o rk er ’s com pu t er . S he al so oft en t oo k t i m e a w ayfr om her w ork t o com pl ai n t o h er superi ors, as k h erco-w orkers t o st op , or w ri t e not es t o h er se l f s o she w ou l d h ave a r e c or d of s om e of the m or e of

f e ns i ve i nc i de nt s . T hi s f a c t or , the r e f

or e , a l s o w e i ghs17

in R e e v e s ’s f

a v o r . 5. O ur“ Se v e r e orP e r v as i v e ” D e te rm i nat i on A f t e rc ons i de r i ng the S upr e m e C our t ’ s f ourf a c t or s i n l i ghtof

the t ot a l i ty of th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s in w h ic h R e e v e s w o r k e d a t C H R W , w e h o ld th a t a r e a s o n ab le j ury c ou l d fi nd thatthe haras sm entR ee ves f ac ed w as suff

i ci ent l y pervasi ve t o al t er the cond i t i on s of herem pl oym ent . W e a gree w i th the S i xth C i rc ui tthat“ a w ork envi ronm entvi ew ed as a w ho l e m aysa t i sf y the l egal defi ni t i on of an abusi ve w ork e n v ir o n m e n t, f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

a h o s tile e n v ir o n m e n t c la im , e v e n th o u g h n o s in g le epi sode cr osse s the T i t l e V II thres ho l d. ” W i l l i am s v . G e n. Motors C or p. , 187 F . 3d 553, 564 ( 6th C i r . 1999) . R e e ve s ha s pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e of s uf f i c i e nt pervas i veness t o survi ve sum m ary j ud gm ent , even i f non e of the i nci dent s s he has de s c r i be d, s t a ndi ng a l one , w oul d be a c t i onabl e . A c c or di ngl y , thi s c a s e c a n onl y be appr opr i a t e l y r e s ol ve d a f t e ra j ury w e i ghs the f

a c t or s a nd de c i de s w he the rthe ha r a s s m e ntw a s s uc h tha ta r e a s onabl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve f e l ttha ti ta f

f e c t e d the c o n d itio n s o f

h e re m p lo y m e n t. W e r e c o g n iz e th a t th e c o n d u c t a t is s u e h e r e is n o t w h a t ty p ic a lly c o m e s to m in d w h e n o n e th in k s o f s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t u n d e rT itle V I I . W e w e r e c a r e f u l in Men do za , m oreover, no tt o “ es t abl i sh a bas el i ne of act i on abl e c on du ctthati s f ar bel ow thates t abl i shed by other c i rc ui t s, ” Men do za , 19 5 F . 3d at12 51 , or “ tri vi al i zeThe plaintiff also alleg ed other instances of

hara ssment, but the Court did not consider 7 those in its pervasivene ss analysis. Lau derd ale , 2007 WL4465204 at *3. 18 true i nst ance s of s exual hara ss m ent . ” I d. at12 52 n. 10 . F urtherm ore, sum m ary j ud gm enti s m ea ntt o “ po l i ce [that ] base l i ne for host i l e e nv i ronm entcl ai m s. ” I d. at 12 44 . N everthel es s, w hatR ee ves e xp er i ence d atC H R W w as no tthe “ ordi nary soci al i zi ng , ” O ncal e v . Su ndow ner O f f shore Servs . , Inc. , 5 2 3 U . S. 7 5 , 8 1 , 1 1 8 S. C t . 998, 1003, 140 L . E d. 2d 201 ( 1998) , or“ or di na ry tr i bul a t i ons of the w or kpl a c e , s uc h a s the s por a di c us e of abus i ve l a ngua ge , ge nde r - r e l a t e d j oke s , a nd o c c a s io n a l te a s in g ” th a t th e “s e v e r e o rp e rv a s iv e ” e le m e n t is m e a n t to f ilte ro u t. Farag her , 5 2 4 U .S . a t 7 8 8 , 1 1 8 S . C t. a t 2 2 8 4 . A s w e m e n tio n e d e a r lie r , ei thersev eri ty orp e r v a s iv e n e s s c a n f o r m th e b a s is o f a h o s tile w o r k e n v ir o n m e n t c la im , a n d o u rh o ld in g to d a y f o c u s e s o n th e la tte r . W hi l e i tw oul d be i m pos s i bl e t o f i nd a pr i orc a s e tha tpe r f e c t l y s uppor t s our re as on i ng , tw o o f our si st erci rc ui t s have hel d thatsi m i l arfa ct s s at i sf i ed the “ se vere o rp e r v a s iv e ” e le m e n t o n p e r v a s iv e n e s s s p e c if ic a lly . I n L au derdal e v . T

ex as D ep’t

of C ri m i na l

Just i ce , N o . 0 6 - 4 1 6 3 6 , 2 0 0 7 WL 44 65 20 4, at*1 (5th C i r. D ec em ber 21, 20 07 ), the F i fth C i rc ui tre ce nt l y hel d that e v id e n c e o f

f r e q u e n t b u t n o n - s e v e r e h a r a s s m e n t w a s s u f f ic ie n tly p e r v a s iv e to s ur vi ve s um m a ry j udgm e nt . T he r e l e va ntha r a s s m e nti n L a u de r da le c ons i s t e d of m u l t i p l e n i g h t l y p h o n e cal l s fro m th e p l ai n t i ff’ s su p erv i so r fo r n earl y fo u r m o n th s. 719

I d. a t*3. W hi l e the c a l l s c l e a r l y i ndi c a t e d the s upe r vi s or ’ s r om a nt i c i nt e r e s ti n the p la in tif f , th e c a ll th a t w a s m o s t s e x u a l in n a tu r e m e r e ly in v ite d th e p la in tif f to tra vel t o L as V egas w i th the supervi sor a nd “ snug gl e. ” I d. In re vers i ng the di stri ct c our t ’ s e ntry of

s um m a ry j udgm e nt , the F i f th C i r c ui tpa ne l de c l a r e d tha tf r e que nt hara ss m entca n b e s uffi ci ent l y pervasi ve t o cre at e aho st i l e w ork env i ronm enteven i f the i nd i vi du al i nci dent s of har as sm entar e “ no tse vere . ” I d. I n D om i ng uez- C urryv. N ev ada T ransp. D ep’t , 42 4 F . 3d 10 27 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) , th e N in th C ir c u it r e a c h e d a s im ila rc o n c lu s io n w h e n it w a s f a c e d w ith e v id e n c e o f

p e r v a s iv e n e s s . T h e p la in tif f te s tif ie d th a t h e rs u p e r v is o rto ld s e x u a lly expl i ci tj ok es “ l i ke everyday, ” i d. a t1035 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) , a nd th a t s h e “c o u ld w r ite a b o o k ” ab o u t a ll th e tim e s h e rs u p e r v is o rh a d s a id th a t h e d id n o t th in k th e p la in tif

f , o ra f e m a le g e n e r a lly , c o u ld d o th e w o r k th a t a m a n is r e q u ir e d to d o . I

d. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T he N i nth C i rc ui tpanel hel d thatthe evi dence of s exual l y e xp l i ci tj ok es and d em ea ni ng com m ent s w as

“ m or e tha n s uf

f i c i e nt ” t o c r e a t e “ ge nui ne f a c tua l di s put e s . . . a s t o b o th the se veri ty a nd pervas i veness of [the supervi sor’ s] cond uct . ” I d. ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . J us ta s the pl a i nt i f

f s di d i n L a u de r da le a nd D o m i n g u ez-C u rry , R ee ves has pres ent ed evi dence of pervas i ve cond uctthati s s uffi ci entt o survi ve sum m ary ju d g m e n t.20 I V . CONCL US I ON T h e ev i d en ce th atR eev es p resen t ed p rev en t s u s fro m h o l d i n g th at , as a m a tt e rof l a w , the c onduc ti n que s t i on di d nots a t i s f y the “ ba s e d on” or“ s e ve r e or pervas i ve” e l em ent s of aho st i l e w ork env i ronm entcl ai m . T he entryof sum m ary j ud gm enti n C H R W ’ s f avor i s thu s r ever se d, and the ca se i s r em anded for further p ro ceed i n g s. RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.