Pu rsuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opi nio n should n ot * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. Kati e isC a u ca si a na n d R on niei s Afric a nAme rica n . 1 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

07- 10555

KAYA NN W OOT EN; R ONNI E L EMUEL W OOT EN P l a i n ti ffs-A p p ell a n t s v. F ED ER AL E X P RE S S C OR P OR AT I ON D efen da n t

- A pp el l ee

A p p ea l f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ct of T exas ( 04- C V

- 1196)

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * K ay ( K at i e ) W o o t e n and Ronni e W o o t e n w e r e l o ng- t i m e e m pl o ye e s of Feder al E xpr es s i n th e D a l l a s/ Fort W or t h ar ea. Th e W oo t ens al l ege t hat becau se o f t h ei r i n t erraci al rel ati on shi p, t h ei r c o- w orkers and sup ervi sors 1 h arassed them , di sci pl i n ed them , den i ed th em posi t i on s f or w h i ch they w ere q u a lifie d , a n d u ltim a te ly te r m in a te d th e ir e m p lo y m e n t. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10555

Kati e was at the time s ep ar at edf rom h er husba nd, wh o at th e ti me worked at her 2 same station . Theydivorced in Feb ruary 200 1. 2 T h e W oot en s brough t t h ei r c l ai m i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e No r t h e r n Di s t r i c t o f T e x a s . Th e c o u r t g r a n t e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t o F e d Ex
on som e cl ai m s and sent t h e res t t o t ri al

. Aj u ry f ou n d f or F edE x on al l coun t s. The W o o t e ns t i m e l y ap pe al e d.

I K at i e W oo t en be gan w or ki ng at FedE x as a par t

- t i m e c our i er i n M ay 198 4 i n G arl an d, T exas. A f t er becom i n g a f

u l l

- t i m e couri er, she successf u l l y ap pl i ed t o t r a ns fe r t o t he Dal l a s Fo r t W o r t h Ramp Tr a ns i t St a t i o n i n M a r c h 1999,
w o r ki ng as a pa r t

- t i m e r am p t r ans port dri vera nd t he n i n a pa r t

- t i m e ni ght h e a v y w e ig h t fr e ig h t d e liv e r y p o s itio n . R o n n ie b e g a n w o r k in g fo r F e d E x in O c to b e r 1 9 9 3 a n d h a d a s im ila r tr aje c to r y , m o v in g fr o m p a r t-t im e c o u r ie r t o fu llt i m e r am p t r ans po r t dr i ve r a n d f i nal l y t o pa r t

- t i m e ni ghthe av ywei ghtf r e i ght d e liv e r y . H e w o r k e d a t t h e s a m e s ta tio n a s K a tie

. K at i e and R onni e bega n dat i ng i n M ay 2000, and m ar r i ed i n June 2001. 2 T h ey all eg e th a t before an d after the y m a rried, c o-w ork ers su b j ected the m to f r e que nt t e as i ng, co m m e nt s , a nd i ns ul t s r e l at e d t o t he i r r e l at i o ns hi p, i nc l udi ng
s o m e re la te d to th e ir in te r r a c ia l s ta tu s . F r o m a b o u t t h e tim e th e y s ta r te d d a tin g , a n d in te n s ify in g a fte r th e ir
m arri age, t h ei r w ork si t u ati on d et eri orat ed. T h ey cl ash ed w i t h t h ei r c o- w orkers and super vi so r s m or e and m or e of t en, unti l t he si t uat i on c am e t o a head i n 2003,
w i t h s e ve r alc o nf

l i c t s w i t h c o - w o r ke r s , a t t e nda nt m e e t i ngs w i t h m ana ge r s , a nd f or m al gr i evanc e a nd di sc i pl i nary p roce sse s. Thei r s t at us as an i nt er r ac i al
c o upl e c am e up s e ve r al t i m e s i n t he c o ur s e o f t he s e de al i ngs w i t h c o - w o r ke r s a nd
m an agers – al t h ou gh , as w e w i l l di scuss, i t w as not a prom i n en t com pon en t ofN o. 07- 10555

3 t he t ens i ons , t he m ee t i ngs, t he c om p l a i n t s, ort he o t her f or m al and i nf

or m al
c ont ac t s bet w ee n t he W oo t ens and FedE x. O n D ecem ber 16, 200 3, F edE x f i red R on n i e f

or r eceiv in g h i s t h i rd d is c ip l in a r y “p e r fo r m a n c e re m in d e r ” fo r a d e liv e r y fa ilu r e , b u t a fte r R o n n ie
c o m pl ai ne d o f

fai l ur e t o ab i de di s c i pl i nar y pr o c e dur alr ul e s , s e ni o r m ana ge m e nt redu ced t h e di sci pl i n e t o a f i ve- da y susp en si on w i t h ou t pay . N i n e w eeks l ater , F e d E x fir e d b o th o f th e m fo r fa ls ify in g re c o r d s a n d d r i v i n g o u ts id e o f th e ir d e liv e r y a r e a . K a ti e a n d R on n i e ea ch f i l ed an E q u a l E m p l oy m en t O p p ortu n i ty C o m m iss ion com pl ai n t on M arch 5, 200 4, al l egi n g t h at t h ey w ere di scharged b e c a u s e o f th e ir in te r r a c ia l re la tio n s h ip in v io la tio n o f T it l e V I I o f th e C iv il Ri ght s Ac t o f

1 96 4. Ronni e ’ s co m pl ai nt i nc l ude d al l e ga t i o ns of har as s m e nt a nd di s c r i m i nat i o n da t i ng f rom Sept e m be r 2 00 1. The EE O C i s s ue d a r i ght

- t o - s ue l e t t e r a nd t hi s s ui t f o l l o w e d. The W o o t e ns a l l e ge vi ol ati o ns o f Ti t l e VI I , t he Texas C om m i ss i on o n H um an R i ght s A c t , 42 U

. S. C

. § 1981, and t he c om m on l aw t ort of i n t en t i on al i n f

l i ct i on of

em ot i on al di st ress . B y o rd e r o f J a n u ary 7, 200 7, Ju dg e Sidney A

. F i t zw ater of t h e U n i t ed S t ate s D i s t r i c t Cour t , i n a c ar e f ul , s i xt y- s i x pa ge M e m o r and um o pi ni o n, di s m i s s e d t he TCH RA c l ai m s , K at i e a nd Ro nni e ’ s ho s t i l e w o r k e nvi r o nm e nt cl ai m s, t h ei r Ti t l e V II fai l u re t o prom ot e cl ai m s, K ati e’ s r et al i ati on cl ai m s un der Ti t l e VI I , Ronni e ’ s di s c i pl i ne / s us pe ns i o n c l ai m unde r Ti t l e VI I and § 1 98 1, a nd
som e of t hei r r et al i at i on c l ai m s. Th e c our t al l ow ed K at i e’ s 2002 fai l u re to prom ot e cl ai m un der § 1981 , both W oot en s’ d i s c r i mi n a t o r y t e r mi n a t i o n c l a i ms , a n d s o me r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms o f b o t h

. O n Jan u ary 31, t h e court di sm i ssed f rom t h e rem ai n i n g cl ai m s t h e cl aim s f or in te n tio n a l in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . T h e re m a in in g cla im s w e n t t o tr ia l. A j u ry ret u rned a verdi ct i n F edE x’ s favor, an d t h e di st ri ct court e n te red j udgm ent f

or FedE x.N o. 07- 10555

F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c ). The language of th is s ubs ect ion w as am ende d eff ect ive 3 December 1, 200 7, after the distric t court’s consi derationof the summaryj udg ment, butth e ch a n g e isn otmate ri a l fo r pu rp os eso f our revie w. Jen kinsv. Met hod ist Hosps. of Dallas , 47 8 F .3d 2 55, 260(quo tin g Dean v . Cityof 4 Sh reveport , 4 3 8F .3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6))

. Jen kins , 47 8 F .3d at 2 60. 5 Hockman v. Wes tward C ommc’ns , 4 0 7F .3 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 5 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 4) ( citin g Sh epherd 6 v. Comp trol le r of Pub. Acc ounts , 1 6 8F .3 d 8 7 1 , 9 7 3 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9))

. 4 I I T h e W oot en s app eal t h e d istr i ct court ’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en t on th e ir h o s tile w o r k e n v ir o n m e n t c la im s , R o n n ie ’ s d is c r im in a to r y d is c ip lin e cla im , a n d R o n n ie ’ s re ta lia to r y te r m in a tio n cla im

. Sum m ar y j udg m e nt i s a ppr o pr i at e i f “ t he pl e ad i ngs , t he di s c over y and di s c l o s ur e m at e r i al s o n f i l e , an d an y af

f i da vi t s s ho w t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i ssue as t o any m at e r i al fac t and t hat t he m o va nt i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm en t as a
m at t er of

l aw . ” O n eval uat i ng a m ot i on f or s um m ar y j udgm ent , “ [ w ] e r es ol ve 3 d o u b ts in fa v o r o f th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty a n d m a k e a ll re a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s in favor of t hat par t y. ” “ N o g enui ne i ss ue o f m at er i al fac t s exi st s i f t he s um m ar y4 j udg m e nt e vi de nc e i s s uc h t h at n o reaso nab l e j ur o r c o ul d f i nd i n fav o r o f

t he
no nm o va nt
. ” W e r e vi e w g r ant s o f s um m ar y j udgm e nt de no vo , b e c aus e t he 5 i ss ue i s one of

l egals uf

f i c i enc y. 6

A R on n i e W oo ten cl a i m s h e raised a n i ssu e of m a terial fact a s to a se p a ra te di scr i m i n ator y pu n i shm en t cl ai m , f or h i s t erm i n ati on of D ecem ber 200 3, w h i ch
w as s ubs e que nt l y redu ced t o a w e e k s us pe ns i o n wi t h pa r t i alb ac k p ay . The di st r i c t c our t gr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm ent on t hi s c l ai m i nso far as i t w as
s e pa r at e f

r o m Ronni e ’ s l at e r di s c r i m i nat o r y t e r m i nat i o n c l ai m , c har ac t e r i z i ng i t a s “ e s s e nt i al l y a c o m po ne nt o f t he t e r m i nat i o n c l ai m . . . . ” For e s s e nt i al l y t heN o. 07- 10555

See Walker

v. T hompso n , 2 1 4F .3 d 6 1 5 , 625 (5t h C ir

. 2 0 0 0), abrogate d on ot her 7 groundsby Burli ngton Northe rn & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White , 5 4 8U .S

. 5 3 ( 2 0 0 6). Farpella-Crosby v. Horizon HealthC are , 97F .3d 8 03, 806(5th Cir. 1 996) 8 Har ri s v. F

ork lift System s, In c. , 5 1 0U .S

. 1 7 , 2 3 ( 1 9 9 3 ); se e E.E.O. C

. v. WC&M 9 En te rprises , 4 9 6F .3 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 9 -4 0 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 5 reasons i t st ated, w e hol d tha t the d i st ri ct court ri gh t l y j u dg ed that t h e l att er t e r mi n a t i o n , w h i c h t h e c o u r t a l l o w e d t o g o fo r wa r d , w a s t h e c r u x o f t h e c l a i m,
an d that t h e W oot en s ot h erw i se fai l ed to rai se a genu i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact
s u ffic ie n t t o a llo w a s e p a r a te s u s p e n s io n cla im to g o fo r w a r d

.
B T o es ta b li sh a h o stile w o rk cla im , p la in tiffs m u st d e m on st rat e ( 1) t h at t h ey
w ere t h e m em bers of a prot ect ed grou p, ( 2) t h at t h ey w e re th e v ic t i m of
u n i n vi t ed h arassm en t , ( 3) t h at t h e ha rassm en t af fect ed a “t erm , condit i on , or pri vi l ege ” of

t hei r em pl oym ent , and ( 4) that t he e m pl oye r knew ors houl d have know n of

t he har as sm ent and fai l ed t o tak e p rom pt r em edi al ac t i on. “ To be 7
a cti on a b l e, th e ch a l l en ge d con d u ct m u st crea te an en vir o n m en t t h a t a
r e as o nab l e pe r s o n woul d f i nd h o s t i l e o r a bus i ve . ” “ [ W ] he t he r an e nvi r o nm e nt 8 i s ‘ ho s t i l e ’ o r ‘ ab us i ve ’ c an be de t e r m i ne d o nl y by l o o ki ng at al l t he ci rcu m stan ces. T h ese m a y i n cl u d e th e freq u en cy of th e d i scrim i n a tory con d u ct; i t s s everi t y; w h et h er i t i s ph ysi cal l y t h reat en in g or h u m i l i ati n g, or a m ere
o ffe n s iv e u t t e r a n c e ; a n d w h e t h e r it u n r e a s o n a b ly in t e r fe r e s w it h a n e m p lo y e e ’s
w o r k p e r fo r m a n c e .” 9 The t e s t r e q u i r e s t h a t p l a i n t i f fs p r o v e t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r c o u l d f i nd th a t t h e a b u sive con d u ct w a s sev ere or p erv a sive. T h e dist ri ct cou rt ap p ea rs toN o. 07- 10555

Th e te st invo lv es a n “or” and not an “an d.” “Title VI I provides a l eg al remedyto 10 victims who estab lish that th e abusivecon duct was sev ere orperva sive .” Harvill v. Wes tward Commc’ns , 43 3 F .3d 428 , 4 34

- 35 (5thC ir. 2 005) (providin g citation s to support the “or” as opposed to “ and,” and noti ngth at this is n ot “ an irrel ev antdisti ncti on”). At ti mes th e di strict court erred and misstated the test a s requiring sev ere and pervas iv e co ndu ct; b ut multiple times e lsewher e it stated a nd ap p lied th e te st correctly. I n any ca se, our revi ew is de n ovo, and we affirm onth e merits, a pplying th e pr oper test. While theyar gu e it re peate dly , th e W oo t ens do n ot su ccessfullydemon strate that 11 Garrett was infac t asupe rvi sor; eve n after consi derab le discov ery , th ey merelyassert th at he “w as g iv en the authority byF edE x to a ssignth e driv ers’ delive ries and make de cisio ns reg ardi ng their workload.” But the involv ement of nume rous othe r supervisor s is cl ear thro ughout th e re cord, as are the limit s of G arre tt’s po wers (for insta nce, Katie Woot en a dm itte d in de po siti on th a t h e h a d n o po we r todis ciplin e h ero r ev a lu a teh erp erfo rm a n ce). Onth e o th erha n d, Fe dE xcon st ru esla n gu a g e fr om Faragher v. Cityof Boc a Raton , 52 4 U. S. 77 5 , 80 3 ( 1 9 9 8) (“tohir e a n d firea n d se t wo rksc h edu le s” ) ( quo tin g E st rich , Sex

atWo rk , 43 S TAN . L. R EV . 81 3, 8 54 ( 199 1)), a s if it lai d out an ecessary conditionof a “ supervisor” relation ship, whichitplainly does n ot. And of co urse, ther e may be de facto supervisors who do n ot b ear th at title . N ot all ex erciseof authority lea ds to an infe renc e o f a supervisory relation ship, parti cul arlywhen close monit orin g is close at han d from othe r direc t supe rvi sors and mana ge rs. S ome i nter depend encean d in equ ality in authority amon g employees i n a corpor ate ente rprise is i nevitab le: not alldepe ndence a mounts to a l eg ally suffici ent “supervisor” relation ship. No doub t, Garre tt’s a ction s influe nced the Wo oten s’ dailywork environ ment, and thu s hi s action s areseri ous, butba sed onth e evi dencebe fore us Garrett was ac o- wo rk era n d n otasu pe rvis or . At depo sitio n, Ronnie testifi ed c once rni ngth e racialoverton es of some o f th e 12 comments made (bysome women who worked inth e o ffice and byGarre tt) about his a nd Katie’ s rel atio nship, be fore and after theybe ga n datin g. The most favo rab le testimony for the Wo ot en s i s th is( em ph a se s a dd ed): Q: Afte r you started datin g what peopl e ma de c om m ents to you abo ut – that referr ed toth e fa ct th at it was aninter-ra cialcou ple? A: We ll

. . . this was like proba blye ve ry otherda y w ith TonyGa rre tt . And this is how my morni ng would basi cally ge t started probably ev ery othe r dayfor probably– probablyu p to theti me me and her go t married

. . . in 200 1.
. . . You 6 hav e r e s t e d i t s j udg m e nt o n t he fac t t hatt he W o o t e ns fai l e d t o r ai s e a ny ge nui ne fa c t a s to w h e th e r th e co n d u c t in q u e s tio n w a s “s e v e r e o r p e r v a s iv e .” 10 M an y of

t h e al l egati on s t h at t h e W oot e n s clai m shou l d h ave su rvi ved
sum m ar y jud gm en t i nvol ve t he be havi or of t hei r c o- w or ker Tony G ar r et t , an A f r i c an- A m er i c an m an w ho s er ved as f r ei ght c oo r di nat or at th e st at i on ( an ho ur l y- pa i d, no n- m ana ge r i alpo s t )

. The a l l e ga t i o ns i nvo l ve f r e que nt 11 in a p p r o p r ia te c o m m e n ts b y G a r r e tt a n d o th e r in d iv id u a ls in th e o ffic e , a s w e ll 12N o. 07- 10555

know, I ’d com e in and, yo u know, th eybein[th e b reak room]. Ch arlo tte and so me ti me s C raig Harris will b e in th er e. An d Gre g Arb et will b e in th er e. . . . An d I’ llwalk in ther e th ey’ll go , “Heyman , you know, h ere come Ron nie Woot en. Ronnie Woot en said he’ll never date ano ther black woman ag ain .” And th a t wa s j u stab out

–

Ime a nth a t wa s j u stab out everyo th erd ay . Iwo u ldc om e ina n d

– a n d h e wo u ldd o th a t.
. . . . Q: To nyGarre tt would say that? A: Oh, y eah

. Just abo ut ev ery othe r day

. . . . And Reginasai d, “The only reaso n Ronniewoul d mess witha white woman is b ecau se th ey’ll do – them bitche s will do a nythin g yo u tellth em todo.” And I’ m sittingth ere go ing like, “Oh, whatever ma n.” And like I said, me and Katie Woot en wasn’t seein g eachoth er th en . . . . Q: So this was be fore yo u were se ein g eachoth er? A : Th isi s b ef

or e. Ye ah , this is b ef

or e. . . . An d th enaft erwe– youkn ow , like Ka ti e [t es tifi ed], youkn ow , th eyt a lkab out th e j u n glef ever . Th a t

–

youkn ow , I’ d co me i n and Tony go , “Oh, herecomeRonnie Woot en . ” An d h e’llsin g the jungle feve r son g. Q: He’d si ngth e son g Jun gl e F ev er? A: Yeah . And he’ll go bac k to the same statement, you know, “Ronnie said he’ll never d ate ano therblack woman ag ain .” An d then allof a su dden Reginagot to the p oi ntw he r e s he go t tired of T onysaying it , you know, “I ’m tired of hear ing it. ” And shit– “tak e thatshitsom ew here els e.” And I don’ t kn ow , I – he stilldidn’t get the pictu re, but I meanup to – probablyup to the time we got marrie d h e wa s –

th a t wa s hisf

a mo u s lin e wh enI–

wh enIc om e in

. . . . Q: Okay. We re youpretty muchknown in the work plac e as a person that liked toki d a ro u n d withhisc o- wo rk er s?

. . . A: Yeah . We pl ay ed aroun d a littl e b it. Q: Inclu ding

T onyGarre tt? A : Mean d T ony– I ’ve b ee nkno wi n gTo nysinceI wa s a DALsince19 9 3 , so– we used to pl ayba sketball t ogethe r a nd

– Q: So he was a personth at yo u jo ked aroun d withinth e work plac e? A: No, Iwoul dn’t sayth at.
. . . I jo ke aroun d w ith ev erybody . I t’s n ot – it ’s n ot ac om mo np ra ctic e th a t Id o. B a si cally , wh enIc om e inIc om e togetmystu ff

– getmyp ou ch , go g etmyt ru ck an d I loa d it

. B u t n o, wh enIc om e in , n o, I don’ t a ctiv elygo o ut and say , “ H ey , l et’s – l et’s j oke aroun d.” . . . Whatyou’r e referring

to when Tony would jo ke arou nd like that, n o, Ididn’t – Iu sed totell Tony, “Okay. Th at’s eno ugh.” With the – yo u know, all Ronn ie sa y he won’ t date ano therblac kw om ana gain. Ididn’t like h eari ngth at. Ididn’t like it. An d It ol d T ony , “Ok ay , T ony , th a t’ s e n ou gh .”

. . . Q:

. . . Di d you eve r rep ort wh at Tony G ar rett, the kind of things t hat he sa id, to any manager b efore youwere married toKat ie Wo ot en? A:N o. . . . Q: And did – aft er y ou were married cou ld y ou te ll me a bo utany co mments or cond uctt hatyou th ink occu rred as h arassmentbe cause youwere in a n int erracial marriage? A:I c an ’tt h in kof an

yt h in g r igh tn ow . 7N o. 07- 10555

Kati e Woote n testifi ed, a pparentlyal so about T onyGarre tt: Th e main thin g he said seve ral times wa s j ungle fev er. “Y’ al l go tt hat j ungle fev er goi ng

on.” He w oul d put – s wingthat intosentenc es severalti mes. Mo re th a nsev er a l ti me s . . . Q: Well, how m any? A: Throughout atwo-y ear perio d? Q: Yeah

. A : P rob ab lyh eardit 1 0o r 1 1 tim es . I nteralia, Katie clai med th at Garrett w ou ldassignh er mo re d elive ries, and more 13 sp re a d out de liv erie s, th a nh erp ee rs , th a t h e wo u lda ssi gnh er phys icallyd em a n di n g“lift ga te” d e l iv e ri e s f

r o m whi c h f

e m a l e d riv e r s we r e u s u a lly s p a r e d , a n d t h a t o n a n u m b er o f occa sion s heaffixe d label s backwards onh eavy d elive ry items, makingeach delive ry more strenu ous. L ater , th e Woote ns c lai m, Garrett offe red to, and did, begin givi ngth em deliv erie s close to their home so they could go homefor lunch: he thenrep orted them to su pervisors for th eir sp en di n gtim e a t h om e whil e onth e j ob

. Aft erth e Wo ot en s c om pl a in edab out h isa ctio n s, Garrett allegedlyphysic ally and ve rballyconfront ed Ronnie in respon se tohis a nd Katie’ s co mp laints
. J UN G LE F EVER (Universal Pictures 1 991 ). The Stevie Won der song “J ungle Fever” 14 fr omth e movie ’sso u n dtra ckwa s als o ahitso n g .

See Jen kins , 47 8F. 3 d at26 5 (favor ab lyc itin gc a sel a w t o th e ef fe ctth a t co u rt s m u st 15 taken otic e, i ndis crim in a ti onc laim s, of r a ci a l “c od e wo rd s” ). 8 a s b y o p p r e s s iv e a c t io n s o f G a r r e t t r e g a r d in g w o r k a s s ig n m e n t s . G a r r e t t ’s 13
com m en t s i n vol ve race: “j u n gl e fever, ” a ph rase m ad e fam ou s by t h e Sp i ke L ee
m o v ie o f th a t n a m e , is a r e fe r e n c e t o in te r r a c ia l r o m a n tic a tt r a c tio n . A n d in 14 15
c o n te x t, e s p e c ia lly w h e n R o n n ie re p o r t s t h a t h e a s k e d G a r r e tt to s to p , a
rea son a b l e j u ror co u l d see i t as m ore tha n m ere teas i n g; itca n b e u n d ersto od to
e x p r e s s a co r e o f v ir u le n t a n d lo n g s ta n d in g d is a p p r o v a l o f in te r r a c ia l ro m a n tic
r e l at i o ns hi ps . The but t o f s uc h “j o ke s ” w o ul d b e und e r s t and ab l y s e ns i t i ve , a nd
c o ul d r e as o nab l y i nt e r pr e t t he r e m ar ks a s ho s t i l e , e ve n int i m i da t i ng. But dep osi t i on t est i m on y sug gest t h at t h e com m en t s by G arret t t ap ered of f or ceased af t er t he W oo t ens ’ m ar r i age, bef or e any c om pl ai nt s about pos sibl e i nt er r ac i al di s c r i m i nat i o n t o m ana ge m e nt
. Thus , e ve n i f t he di s t r i c t c o ur t w as w r o ng and th e com m en ts cou l d am ou n t t o “sev ere or p erv a sive” ab u sive w ork p l a ce co n d u ct,N o. 07- 10555

The wr it t en complaints in evidence d o n ot r eflec t co ncerns about i nter -raci al 16 prej udic e. Th ere is some testimony abo ut compla in t s r el at ing to race . On e part o f Kati e’s de po siti ont es ti mo ny , co n ce rnin gh erc om pl a intst o on e su pe rvis or , Su e Wals h , ra nth u s: Q: You told SueWalsh that you tho ught thatyou were b ein g treated differently byT onyGarre tt b ecau se you were i n an inte r-raci al marria ge ? A: Bec auseof that a nd he didn’ t – h e di dn’t like me. Q: Whodidn’t like you? A: Tony. Q: How manyti mes did yo u tell SueWalsh that you thou ght th at Tony Garrett was doi ngthis because yo u were i n an inte r-raci al marria ge . A: Probab lyonce. Q: Whe n? A: I didn’ t te ll her allth e ti me. Q: Whe n? A: I told her – Icompl ain ed about th e pr obl ems all the time. Q: Iwa n t tokn owh owmu ch– yousaidyout ol d h ero n ceth a t itwa s b ec a u se it was an– because yo u w er e in aninter-ra cialmarriage. Whe n did that happe n? A: I don’ t kno w. I t was sometime when she had come ther e i n that y ear. Q: An d n ev er a gain after that? A: I reallycouldn’ t te ll yo u. Q: Do you know what th e subj ect was th at yo u were c omplai ni ngabou t? Th e specifi c subj ect? A: Yeah , it was th e di stributionof freight. See Nicholsv. Lewis Grocer , 1 3 8F .3 d 5 6 3 , 5 7 0 -7 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 8). 17 9 R on n i e’ s fai l u re t o p u t m an agem en t on n ot i ce contem poran eou sl y w ou l d d oom th is p a r t o f th e W o o te n s ’ cla im

. As far a s t he a l l e ge dl y o ppr e s s i ve w o rk ass i gnm e nt s , c o ns t r ui ng t he d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y in th e W o o te n s ’ fa v o r , th e a c tio n s th e m s e lv e s w e r e la r g e ly
o r e n tir e ly ra c e -n e u tr a l. T h e W o o te n s ’ c o m p la in ts a s t o t h e s e a c tio n s s im ila r ly
o ffe r o n ly b r i e f g lim p s e s o f a lle g a tio n s o f p o s s ib le p r eju d ic e a g a in s t t h e ir i nt er r ac i al r el at i ons hi p, and any i nfer enc e o f r ac i al an i m us appe ar s t o b e 16
en t i rel y sub j ect i ve, not s u pp ort ed by an y com m en t s or act i on s. 17 W e s t and i n a n unc o m f o r t ab l e b ut fam i l i ar pl ac e f o r c o ur t s a dj udi c at i ng d is c r im in a tio n cla im s , fa c e d w ith in a p p r o p r ia te , o ffe n s iv e re m a r k s n o t le g a lly
s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c l a i m. T h e d i f f i c u l t y o f e v a l u a t i n g d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms at t h e sum m ary j u dg m en t st age i s w el l kn ow n an d d eri ves f rom obvi ou s s ou rces ,N o. 07- 10555

Har vi ll , 4 3 3 F .3 d a t 4 3 6( 5 thC ir .2 0 0 5 ). 18 See, e.g., Machinc hickv. P B Power, In c. , 398 F.3d 345, 353 (5t h Cir. 2005) (“Wehave 19 fou nd thatpurel y indi rec t ref ere nces to an em plo yee’s age . . . ca n sup por t an infer enceof age di sc ri mi n a ti on) ( citin

g Bien kowski v. Am. Airlin es, I nc. , 85 1 F .2d 1 503 , 1 50 7 n.4 (5thC ir. 1 9 8 8)) ; Al

fa n o v. C

os t el lo , 29 4 F .3d 3 65, 377(2d Cir. 2 002 ) (“I t i s . . . important i n hostile work environ ment dec ision s that l ack ali nkage o f correlationto the clai med groun d of di sc ri mi n a ti on .” ); Bry antv. B rownlee , 26 5 F . Su pp. 2d 52, 62-6 6 (D.D.C. 200 3) (fi ndin g no infe re n ce of ra ci a l di sc ri mi n a ti ono nf a ct s p re se n te d) ; Te rr

y v. Ash crof

t , 336 F.3d 128 , 14 7-15 0 (2d C ir. 2 003) (allowin g for i nfere nce of ra c ia l motiv atio n for dailysupe rvi soryh ara ssment, inc ircu mst a n ce s m or e extr em e th a nth e in st a n t ca se). I nth e sa mesp irit , wer ec ogniz e th a t prio r ca se s f in di n gh os tilewo rke nviron me n ts , 20 whichofte n furnish quite e gre gi ous ex amples, “do n ot mark thebo und aryof what is 10 n a m e ly th e im p o r t a n c e o f “h e s a id / s h e s a id ” c r e d ib ility d e te r m in a tio n s . W e
r e m a in k e e n ly a w a r e t h a t “[w ]h e th e r . . . a lle g a tio n s a r e t o o v a g u e to u ltim a te ly carry t h e day i s a c redi bi l i t y determ i n ati on , or requ i res w ei gh i n g t h e evi den ce, bo t h o f w hi c h a r e m o r e a ppr o pr i at e l y do ne b y t he t r i e r o f fac t
. ” Tha t s ai d,

18 t he r e m us t o n t he f

ul l r e c o r d o f

t he c as e a t ha nd b e a ge nui ne i s s ue o f fac t f o r t he j ury. The W o o t e ns o f fe r ev i de nc e o f

w o r kpl ac e i nc i de nt s , c o nf l i c t s , a nd
c o m p la in ts , th e v a s t m ajo r ity o f w h ic h d o n o t d ir e c tly o r u n d e r a n y re a s o n a b le i n ference i n vol ve raci al an i m u s. T h e conn ect i on betw een G arret t ’ s and ot h er c ow or ker s’r ac e- bas ed c om m ent s, and t he m or e s er i ous w or kpl ac e ac t i ons s uch as
u n favorab l e shi f

t s and so on , i s w eak t o non - exi st en t
. Th ere i s th in evi den ce t h at possi bl e raci al di scr i m i n ati on w as com pl ai n ed ab ou t , am i dst m an y ot h er
c om pl ai nt s, and w el l after th e b r unt, and per haps af t er al l , of

t he r ac i al
c o m m e nt s a nd i nnue ndo ha d a ba t e d. 19 W e w ou l d n ot l a y d ow n a ru l e th a t ve rb a l com m en ts cou l d n ev er lead to i n ferences of

raci al m ot i vati on ; nor do w e hol d that f requ en t raci al com m en t s,
even m ean t i n j est , cann ot sup port a f i n di n g of

h ost i l e w ork en vi ronm en t ; nor, f i nal l y, do w e i nt e nd t o e s t ab l i s h a new ba s e l i ne f o r w hats o r t o f

c o m m e nt s a nd cond u ct do n ot qu al i f y as “ severe orpervasi ve. ” C l ose ana l ysi s of t h e sum m ary 20N o. 07- 10555

acti onable .” Har ri s , 51 0 U .S. at22 . The S ec on dC ir c uit’ s comment a pplie s equallyinthis circuit: “Pri or cases in whichwe h av e co ncluded that area sonablej urorcould fi nd that th e work environme nt was obje ctiv elyh ostil e don ot ‘ estab lisha base lin e’ tha t sub sequ ent plai ntiffs must reachin order to prevail.” Sch iano v. Qualit y P ayroll Sys

. , 445 F.3 d 59 7, 6 06 (2 d C ir

. 2 0 0 6).

See, e.g. , Butle r v. Ysle ta Indep. Sch. D is t. , 1 6 1 F .3 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 9 -7 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 8). 21 11 j u dg m en t evi den ce p resented i s requ i red i n t h ese c ases, an d su ch an al ysi s, of 21
a vo l um i nous am ount of evi denc e i n t hi s c as e, espe c i al l y t he ti m e l i ne o f r ac i al
com m en t s, a d v e rse act i on s, an d com pl ai n t s, here l ead s us t o our an sw er, in e s c a p a b ly

. A s f or t he al l ege d hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent c r eat ed byPeyt on, i nso far as it m u s t b e s e p a r a te d fr o m th e c la im s r e g a r d in g G a r r r e tt , th is cla im to o m u s t fa il b e c a u s e o f t h e u t t e r la c k o f d e m o n s t r a t io n th a t r a c e w a s in v o lv e d in P e y t o n ’s
an i m u s. T rue, t h e h arassm en t seem s t o h ave begu n i n t em poral proxi m i t y t o a
com pl ai n t t h at t h e W oot en s w ere t h e obj ect s of raci al di scr i m i n ati on , bu t cl ose
ex a m i n a ti on of th e ev i d en ce in reco rd , i n cl u d i n g th e W oo ten s’ ow n com p l a i n ts
a b o u t P e y to n , fa il to ra is e a n y g e n u in e p o s s ib ility th a t P e y to n w a s h e r s e lf
m o tiv a te d b y r a c ia l a n im u s . T h e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t a n y d is lik e o r u n fa v o r a b le t r eat m ent w as r ac i al l y m ot i vat ed. H ow eve r ob noxi ous her behavi or m ay have been , no reason able j u ror coul d f i n d that i t w as t i ed to race.
C T h e W o ot en s app aren t l y seek revi ew of t h e di st ri ct court ’ s s u m m ary j udgm ent on R onni e’ s r et al i at i on c l ai m r el at i ng t o hi s D ec em b er 2 003
s u s p e n s io n , co m m u te d to a tw o -d a y s u s p e n s io n . W e a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d th a t t h is
c l ai m i s separ at e f

r o m t he r e t al i at i o n c l ai m t hatw as a l l o w e d t o pr o c e e d. The W o o te n s o ffe r n o cit a tio n to a n y p o in t w h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d

.
IIIN o. 07- 10555

C ou n se l toth e Wo ot en s. 22 The court re porterh ere appar ently type d “I vi e” for “Paul.” We make th e appropri ate 23 sub st itu ti on s i nth e re mainin gt ra n sc riptp orti on . 12 The W o o t e ns s e e k r e l i e f o n num e r o us o t he r g r o u n ds, i nc l udi ng t he prej u di ci al adm i ssio n of i rrel evan t evi den ce, fai l u re t o render a j u dg m en t as a
m att er of

l aw or order a new t ri al , an d the fai l u re t o s trik e a r a ci al l y bi ased
ve ni r e m e m be r f

o r c aus e . Al l o f

t he s e g r o unds a r e pr e s e r ve d i n s o m e f o r m i n t he
r e c o r d b e lo w a n d a r e r e v i e w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . A p p e lla n ts a ls o cla im t h e ir tri al w as t ai n t ed by perj u ry an d su born ati on of perj u ry, l evel i n g cha rges at w i t n esses an d coun self or t h e app el l ees. A l l of t h ese c l ai m s are m eri t l ess.
A The di s t r i c t c o ur t r e f us e d t o s t r i ke v e ni r e m e m be r P aulf o r c aus e , f

o r c i ng th e W o o te n s to e x e r c is e a p e r e m p to r y s tr ik e a g a in s t P a u l, le a v in g th e m u n a b le to s tr ik e a p o s s ib ly ra c ia lly b ia s e d v e n ir e m e m b e r , sc h o o lte a c h e r M o r r is

. T h e voi r di re r el evan t t o t h e chal l en ge of P au l ran thu s: TH E CO U RT : H e l l o , M r s . P aul

. Yo u i ndi c at e d t haty o u ha d s t r o ng feeli n gs ab ou t i n terra ci a l m a rriag e; i s th a t correct? P R O S P E C T IV E J U R O R P A U L : W e ll , -- T H E C O U R T : U n l ess I confused you w i t h M rs. I vi e. PR O SPE CT I VE J U RO R PA U L: I t hi nk y o u di d. TH E C O U RT : D o y o u kno w o f a ny reas o n y o u c an’ t b e fai r a nd i m pa rt i al i n t h i s c ase? P R O S P E C T IV E JU R O R P A U L : W el l , no. I t h i n k I c ou l d be. T H E C O U R T : A ll rig h t. I th in k I c o n fu s e d y o u w ith M r s . Iv ie

. D o you ha ve an y qu est i on s? M S . L A S T E R : I ha d the sam e note, m a’ am . A re you sure you 22 di dn ’ t s ay y o u ha d s t r o ng fe e l i ngs a bo ut i nt e r r ac i alr e l at i o ns hi ps? B ecau se I w rot e t h at dow n f or you as w el l as M s. I vi e. PR O SP E C TIV E JU R O R [ PA U L] : W el l , I be l i eve a r obi n shoul d be 23 w i t h a Robi n [ s i c ] , but t he r e ar e a l o t o f pe o pl e t h at are m arr yi ng i nt er r ac i al l y, and so I c an’ t – I c an’ t l i ve t hei r l i fe f or t hem

. I have t o l i ve m i n e.N o. 07- 10555

13 M S. LA ST E R : O kay. So you do have fee l i ngs t hat i nt er r ac i al relati on sh i p s ar e n ot ri gh t? PR O SP E C TIV E JU R O R [ PA U L] : I t ’ s j ust not f or m e, and m y fam i l y. I ’ l l j ust put i t t hat w ay. M S . L A S T E R : O k a y . PR O SPE CT I VE J U RO R [ PA U L] : But , y ou know, t hat ’ s s o m e bo dy el se’ s prerogat i ve, t h at’ s f i n e. I don ’ t hol d an ythi n g aga i n st ‘ em . T H E C O U R T : W ou l d you ha ve an y di f f i cul t y i n – i f

I i n st ruct you t hat t he l aw pr ohi bi t s di sc r i m i nat i on bas ed o n i nt er r ac i al r e l a t i o n s h i p s , y o u h a v e a n y p r o b l e m a p p l y i n g t h a t l a w? P R O S P E C T IV E JU R O R [ P A U L ] : N o.

. . . [P r o s p e c tiv e ju r o r e x its .] T H E C O U R T : I s t h ere any chal l en ge t o t h e j u ror? M S

. L A S T E R : Y es, j u dg e. S h e l i ed, f or one t h i n g. I hea rd i t an d you he ar d i t , a nd m y c l i e nt s hea r d hersa y t he f i r s t t i m e she had s t r o ng fee l i ngs about i nt er r ac i al r el at i ons hi ps, and ge t s up her e a nd say s s he do e s n’ t a t f

i r s t a nd f

i nal l y ad m i t s i t
. I do n’ t t r us t a nyt hi ng s he sai d throug h t h e w h ol e voi r di re proc ess. TH E C O U R T: I ’ m not s ure i t w as a l i e. There ar e j uro r s w ho hear th in g s o r m is u n d e r s ta n d th in g s fo r a n u m b e r o f r e a s o n s , a n d I’ll o ve r r ul e t he m o t i o n. P a u l’ s s tr ik in g s ta te m e n t o f h e r c o n v ic tio n th a t “a r o b in s h o u ld b e w ith a R o b in [s ic ]” –a q u a s i

- p r o v e r b ia l s ta te m e n t in s in u a tin g th a t in te r r a c ia l m a r r ia g e is
som eh ow un n atural , contr ary t o t h e order of t h i n gs – obvi ou sl y h as beari n g on th e W o o te n s ’ c a s e , g iv e n t h e c e n tr a lity o f th e ir in te r r a c ia l re la tio n s h ip to th e ir
c l ai m s. D es pi t e t hi s, i n l i gh t of P a ul ’ s af f i r m at i on t hat s he c oul d be i m par t i al
an d k eep h er personal preferences to h ersel f, the court ref u sed t o st ri ke h er f

or
c a u s e . It w a s th e n th e W o o te n s ’ d e c is io n to s p e n d a p e r e m p to r y to s tr ik e P a u l, l eaving them un able t o st ri ke M orri s, a sc h ool t each er, w h ose voi r di re r an t h u s: C O U R T : I s t h ere an yon e on the pa n el w h o h as ever personal l y been accused of di scr i m i n ati on or reta l i ati on , w h et h er t h at acc u sati on w as ri gh t or w rong, ha d m eri t or n o m eri t w h atsoever ? A l l ri gh t
. O n t h e f

i rstrow , M rs. M orri s.

. . . PR O SP E C TIV E JU R O R M O R R I S: I ’ m a sc hoolte ac her

. I’ m al w ays prej u di ced. E verythi n g I do.N o. 07- 10555

See U.S. v. Mart inez-Salazar , 52 8U .S

. 3 0 4 , 3 1 1 -1 7( 2 0 0 0); se e alsoU .S

. v. San ch ez 24 Hernandez , 5 0 7F .3 d 8 2 6 , 8 2 9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 14 TH E C O U RT : O ka y. And no w l e t m e a sk you , i s t he r e a nyt hi ng ab o ut t hat t hat yo u t hi nk w o ul d pr e ve nt yo u f r o m be i ng fai r a nd i m pa rt i al i n t h i s c ase? P R O S P E C T IV E JU R O R M O R R IS: N o. TH E C O U RT : Al l r i ght

. Tha nk y o u. M o r r i s ’ s c o m m e nt s ugg e s t s t hatshe had be e n a c c us e d o f pr ej udi c e o r b i as , b ut t h at s h e t h ou gh t i t i n t h e n orm al course of her occ u pa t i on t o be accused of such t h i n gs. Th ere w as no f u rt h er i n vest i gati on of w h y she m i gh t t h i n k thi s or how it m ig h t a ffe c t h e r ju d g m e n t, a n d t h e r e c o r d a s it s ta n d s d o e s n o t c le a r ly est abli sh th a t s h e shou l d h ave been st ri cken f or c au se. Th e W oot en s di d n ot seek to cha l l en ge M orri s f or c au se. T h e a ss e rt i on t h at M orri s m i gh t ha ve been t h e obj ect of a perem ptory ch a l l en ge i s n ot p rob a ti ve h ere . T h e S u p rem e C ou rt ha s d ir e c tl y h eld th a t a

“ w asted” perem ptory does n ot t ai n t a cri m i n al t ri al , an d i t s r eason i n g a f ort i ori 24 ap pl i es here. Th ere i s no error .
B The W o o t e ns c l ai m t he di s t r i c t c o ur t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n no t s e t t i ng
a s id e th e ju r y v e r d ic t, b e c a u s e F e d E x fa i l e d t o r e b u t t h e W o o te n s ’ p r im a fa c ie
c as e o f di s c r i m i nat i o n. The r e w as a m pl e e vi de nc e , b o t h t e s t i m o ni ala nd docu m en t ary, t h at s u pp ort ed F edE x’ s posi t i on , i n cl u di ng o n t h e i ssue of w h et h er

“ del i very area” h ad suf f i ci en t m ean i n g t o suppo r tdi s c i pl i ne a ga i ns tt h e W oot en s. T h e W oot en s had every opportun i t y to te st thi s evi den ce at t ri al , an d the j u ry
w as not un reaso n a b le i n f i n di n g t h at Fed E x h ad rebutt ed the W oot en s’
a lle g a tio n s o f p r eju d ic e .
CN o. 07- 10555

The preci se n atu re o f th e Woote ns’ obj ectio ns to this evid enceis not clear fro m the ir 25 appellatebriefs; n or wa s it clear at tri al, where obj ectio ns te nded to arriv e i n packs a nd be ill explained. F or si mplicity of a nalysis, we haveh ere construed ea c h obj ectio n as raisin g the st ronges t legal the ory availabl e, butnone carr ies the day. 15 T h e W oot en ’ s qu i bble w i t h t h e al l eged l y erroneou s adm i ssi on of evi den ce
an d tes t i m on y t h at t h ey cl ai m w as prej u d icia l t o t h ei r c ase. Th e evi den ce i ncl udes c onf

l i c t i ng t es t i m ony r egar di ng FedE x’ s r at i onal es f or i t s dec i si ons , an
e m p lo y m e n t p o lic y d o c u m e n t o n “fa ls ific a tio n ” s ig n e d b y K a tie W o o te n in N o ve m be r 1 99 0, a nd d am aging no t e s f r o m c o - w o r ke r s a bo ut t he W o o t e ns i n cl u ded i n a report t h at w as part of F edE x’ s i n vest i gati on of t h e W oot en s. 25 T h e chal l en ged evi den ce and t est i m on y w ere r el evan t t o t h e centr al i ssues tested at tri a l

. W h i l e th e introd u cti on of som e of the ev i d en ce w a s, n o d ou b t, prej udi c i al t o t he W oo t ens , none of i t w as not und ul y so . Th e W oo ten s had
a m p le o p p o r tu n ity to a tt a c k e a c h p ie c e o f e v id e n c e a t t r ia l, a n d n o d o u b t t h e ir efforts af

fec t ed t he w ei ght t he j ury as si gned evi denc e i n c om i ng to i ts d e te r m in a tio n . F e d E x ’ s c a s e w a s n o t n e a r ly a s t r o u b le d a s th e W o o te n s cla im , and t he c ent r al i ss ues of t hi s t r i al w er e c ar ef ul l y and t horou gh l y ex pl or ed at tr ia l.

D The W oot e ns ’ a l l e ga t i o ns o f pe rj ur y, s ubo r nat i o n o f pe rj ur y, a nd
m is c o n d u c t a r e te n u o u s a t b e s t. M o s t o f th e s e a lle g a tio n s a r e r e v ie w e d fo r p la in
error , becau se t h ey w ere not rai sed i n t h e court bel ow . T h e ones t h at w ere are
r e v ie w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . T h e st an da rd of

revi e w is o f no m om en t here, becau se t h e rec ord bel ow
r e f l e c t s no e r r o r . The W o o t e ns ’ b r i e fs i nc l ude num e r o us b i t s o f t e s t i m o ny and
a r g u m en tati on tak en ou t of con tex t. T h e cou rt ga ve th e W oo ten s a m p le
o p p o r tu n ity to ch a lle n g e a n d u n d e r m in e m is le a d in g te s tim o n y , a n d it p r o p e r lyN o. 07- 10555

16 in s tr u c te d th e ju r y re g a r d in g th e im p o r t t o b e g iv e n to t h e s ta te m e n ts o f c o u n s e l. W e f i n d n o err ors, perj u ri ou s s t atem en t s, or i n st an ces of m i scondu ct t h at c al l f or reversalof

t h e j u dg m en t i n t h i s c ase. AF F I RMED.