Opinion ID: 788090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Valentine-Johnson's hostile work environment claim based upon sexual harassment

Text: 58 Valentine-Johnson's remaining claim before the district court was one of an allegedly hostile work environment based upon sexual harassment. She may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment. Burnett v. Tyco Corp., 203 F.3d 980, 982 (6th Cir.2000) (quotation marks omitted). To prevail on this claim, Valentine-Johnson must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subject to unwelcomed sexual harassment; (3) the harassment was based on her sex; (4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work performance and created a hostile work environment; and (5) [the employer] knew or should have known of the charged sexual harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action. Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, Inc. 123 F.3d 868, 872 (6th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted). 59 Valentine-Johnson, as a woman, is a member of a protected class. She alleges that she was subject to unwelcome conduct that was based on her sex. But [f]or sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment. Burnett, 203 F.3d at 982 (quotation marks omitted). In order to evaluate whether an environment is hostile, we look at the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Id. (quotation marks omitted). 60 The district court held that Valentine-Johnson had failed show that her work environment was objectively offensive. She alleges only one incident that involved actual touching — when Colonel Brown put his arm around her while walking down the hall. On another occasion she objected to Colonel Brown's standing too close to her. Valentine-Johnson was also offended by what she perceived to be inappropriate behavior between Colonel Brown and other women at Selfridge. Because of this purported sexually charged atmosphere, Valentine-Johnson believed that Colonel Brown's comment that he would take care of her if she was nice to him was a reference to sex. She does not allege, however, that Colonel Brown ever followed up on this remark. 61 Colonel Brown's physical interaction with Valentine-Johnson was not frequent, severe, physically threatening, or humiliating. Likewise, there is no proof that his behavior with other women in the office, who were apparently willing participants, unreasonably interfered with Valentine-Johnson's own work performance. This court has rejected hostile work environment claims under circumstances that were far more sexually offensive. See, e.g., Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court, 201 F.3d 784, 790 (6th Cir.2000) (holding that the employer's alleged request for sexual favors from the employee in exchange for a better evaluation, calling the employee Hot Lips, making comments about the employee's state of dress, and telling dirty jokes in front of the employee did not create hostile working environment); Burnett, 203 F.3d at 985 (holding that the conduct of a supervisor who placed a pack of cigarettes under a female employee's bra strap, remarked that she had lost her cherry, and said he was aroused by the phrase dick the malls was not sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment); Black v. Zaring Homes, Inc., 104 F.3d 822, 826 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that a supervisor's teasing about the employee dancing on tables at a local strip bar, joking about Hooterville or Titsville, calling her a broad, and making fun of her pronunciation of bosom did not create an objectively hostile environment). In light of this circuit's precedents and the isolated and de minimis nature of Colonel Brown's conduct, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Air Force on Valentine-Johnson's hostile work environment claim.