Opinion ID: 612670
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Harassment Was Severe and Pervasive

Text: The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the scope of Title VII's prohibition on sex-based discrimination covers more than `terms and conditions in the narrow contractual sense.' Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (quoting Oncale, 523 U.S. at 78, 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399. Nevertheless, harassment that does not directly result in tangible changes in employment  hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits, Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257  must be severe and pervasive enough to bring the complained-of conduct within Title VII's requirement that workplace sex discrimination affects a term, condition, or privilege of employment. See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 69, 106 S.Ct. 2399. Although the district court properly identified relevant factors from our precedents when it concluded that there was no indication that Santiago's conduct was frequent, increased in severity, or interfered with Pérez-Cordero's work performance, it applied those factors far too rigidly. See Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39, 48 (1st Cir.2008). The district court's conclusions also reflect a basic misapprehension of Pérez-Cordero's claim. The single kissing incident on which the district court focused does not constitute the entirety of Pérez-Cordero's hostile environment claim, but rather stands as just one example of Santiago's retaliatory tactics  in this instance, an effort to humiliate him in front of a co-worker. At this stage in the litigation, it is our responsibility to evaluate Pérez-Cordero's claim of harassment in light of the record as a whole and mindful of the totality of the circumstances. Cf. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 69, 106 S.Ct. 2399 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(b)). We have said that the hostility vel non of a workplace does not depend on any particular kind of conduct, Billings, 515 F.3d at 48 (holding that a supervisor's harassment of his employee was sufficiently severe and pervasive even though the conduct alleged did not include touching, sexual advances, or `overtly sexual comments to or about her'), and that [t]here is no precise formula for establishing sufficiently egregious conditions. Rosario, 607 F.3d at 246. Nor do particular factors that contributed to our finding a hostile work environment in prior cases set a baseline against which future cases must be measured. Accord Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597, 606 (2d Cir.2006). As set forth above, Pérez-Cordero offered evidence describing both an initial period in which Santiago pursued him romantically and a subsequent months-long campaign of retaliation by Santiago as punishment for his rejection of her advances. Santiago threatened Pérez-Cordero with a negative evaluation, attempted to initiate a formal disciplinary proceeding against him, supervised his work scrupulously, and berated his performance in front of his co-workers. Cf. Che v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d 31, 40 (1st Cir.2003) (finding sufficient evidence of severe and pervasive harassment in series of incidents of undeserved or excessive discipline); Marrero, 304 F.3d at 20 (same). She assigned to him tasks that were physically demanding and that excluded him from staff meetings and training opportunities. Cf. O'Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713, 729 (1st Cir.2001) ([W]here a plaintiff endures harassing conduct, although not explicitly sexual in nature, which undermines her ability to succeed at her job, those acts should be considered along with overtly sexually abusive conduct in assessing a hostile work environment claim.). Wal-Mart contends, however, that additional undisputed facts in the record clearly demonstrate that any harassment by Santiago was not severe or pervasive enough to interfere with Pérez-Cordero's performance of his work. In particular, Wal-Mart emphasizes that Pérez-Cordero was offered a promotion (which he declined), was eventually paid for his unused vacation time, and generally received positive performance evaluations. These actions do not negate the impact of Santiago's conduct on Pérez-Cordero's day-to-day work conditions. Nor does Pérez-Cordero's perseverance in staying on the job undermine his claim of sexual harassment. We have never required an employee to falter under the weight of an abusive work environment before his or her claim becomes actionable. See Billings, 515 F.3d at 51 (The fact that Billings managed to get her work done ... is by no means fatal to her hostile environment claim.). In short, the conduct described by Pérez-Cordero is sufficiently severe and pervasive to have altered the terms or conditions of his employment with Wal-Mart.