Opinion ID: 172362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discrimination on the Basis of Color

Text: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act proscribes employment practices that “permeate the workplace with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’” Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., 520 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation omitted). “Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment—an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive—is beyond Title VII’s purview.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). The district court held that “some of the comments and remarks”of her co-workers and supervisors could have caused Ms. Nettle subjectively to perceive that her working environment was hostile and abusive. Dist. Ct. Op. 13–14. But it also held that “from the objective standpoint,” the “harassment or offensive conduct over the thirteen-year employment period was not sufficiently constant or frequent . . . that it could be -12- considered sufficiently pervasive or severe to survive summary judgment.” Id. at 15. The district court highlighted three deficiencies it saw in Ms. Nettle’s case. First, it noted that, although Ms. Nettle had “named many individuals who she . . . contended harassed her. . . . [she] has not attributed offensive remarks to many of these alleged harassers, and she has not described the exact nature of many of the comments.” Dist. Ct. Op. 14. Second, it noted that Ms. Nettle “had admitted that she cannot recall with any specificity the dates when many . . . comments were made.” Id. Finally, although Ms. Nettle claimed to have been subjected to discrimination throughout her employment, “she has conceded that ‘[19]96 . . . until [19]99 were good years” and that she did not recall that Mr. Hunter directed any offensive comments at her during that time, except in jest. Id. at 15; see R. 242–43 (describing that in those years Mr. Hunter would “speak with [her]. . [and] promote any activities that [she] initiated or attempted to initiate or present; any requisition or anything [she] requested in regard to [her] youth groups wasn’t denied.”). Ms. Nettle asks us to reverse the district court’s holding. Her brief points to several pages in the record which summarize “the instances of discrimination because of her skin color” that Ms. Nettle alleges she has suffered. Aplt. Br. at 27. These stated instances suffer from many of the problems that the district court identified in its opinion. Dates are left unspecified. Ms. Nettle admitted -13- again and again that she could not recall the dates or events at which Mr. Hunter allegedly made the discriminatory comments. R. 167, 88–89. She also identified other people as making discriminatory remarks, but likewise could not give specific dates or events at which they were made. R. 90–91, 93, 95. Many of her allegations against Mr. Hunter are vague. In her deposition, she said that “[i]n 1993 in all staff meetings,” there would always be “at least one discriminatory or racial slur against different tribal affiliations or lighter-skinned people,” and from “1993 to [her] termination date there were statements of discrimination by Mr. Hunter.” R. 88–89. In short, “[e]verything in a negative nature” came from Mr. Hunter. R. 250. Some of this vagueness is inconsequential. A hostile work environment claimant need not establish precise dates for every insult. After all, the point of such claims is that the discrimination was ongoing and pervasive, that is, all the time, and not at isolated points in time. See, e.g., Rocha Vigil v. City of Las Cruces, 119 F.3d 871, 875 (10th Cir. 1997). Moreover, Ms. Nettle does recall some specific remarks by Mr. Hunter and others. She testified that Mr. Hunter commented that Ms. Nettle “thinks she’s Indian, but we wonder. We have been trying to get rid of her since the day we hired her.” R. 167–68. Mr. Hunter also said, according to Ms. Nettle, that people who did not look Indian “don’t -14- represent the Indian community well.” 1 R. 246. In addition, she points to specific remarks by other clinic members, for example, Daren Paddyaker’s remark that Ms. Nettle was a “wannabe Indian,” and Dawn Singleton’s comment that she was the “white counselor.” R. 224, 232. Affidavits from other employees allege that Robyn Sunday, the Chief Operating Officer of the clinic, referred to Ms. Nettle as “the big-boobed white Renee” on several occasions. R. 366, 369. Moreover, affidavits from two employees allege that those who did not appear “Indian” were treated differently at the Clinic. R. 359, 365. Finally, she alleged that child patients at the Clinic, and their parents, would sometimes refer to her as “white doctor.” R. 237. A hostile work environment is one that is “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” MacKenzie v. City & County of Denver, 414 F.3d 1266, 1280 (10th Cir. 2005). It is not the function of Title VII to make a federal case out of every insulting or unpleasant remark, even those related to protected status. “[M]ere utterance of an . . . epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee . . . does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to 1 It appears that Ms. Nettle heard this remark second hand from the human resources director. R. 246. In fact, the only specific remark from Mr. Hunter Ms. Nettle appears to have alleged was the “she claims she’s Indian, but we wonder” line. See R. 397–98. -15- implicate Title VII.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (quotations and internal citation omitted). Rather, a hostile work environment is one that a “reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.” Id. This generally entails a “steady barrage of opprobrious [] comments.” Herrera v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 474 F.3d 675, 680 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Chavez v. New Mexico, 397 F.3d 826, 832 (10th Cir. 2005); Ford v. West, 222 F.3d 767, 777 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Bolden v. PRC Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 551 (10th Cir. 1994)). 2 We do not believe that the district court erred in finding that Ms. Nettle’s allegation of discrimination does not meet this standard. Ms. Nettle’s allegations of identifiable discriminatory or harassing conduct constitute “sporadic . . . slurs” rather than a “steady barrage of opprobrious . . . comments.” Bolden v. PRC Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 551 (10th Cir. 1994). We also note, as did the district court, that Ms. Nettle was employed by the Clinic for over a decade, and that she conceded that she was treated favorably for a significant portion of that time, from 1996 to “around 1999.” R. 242; see Dist. Ct. Op. 14–15. Ms. Nettle’s claims that Mr. Hunter would make “frequent” racial comments at staff meetings and was generally “negative,” as well as the statements by her co-workers that there was discrimination at the clinic, do not 2 The dissent complains that these precedents have “improperly converted a disjunctive analysis,” ‘severe or pervasive,’ into a conjunctive analysis, requiring “severe and pervasive.’” Diss. Op. 10 n.4. But that is the governing law in this circuit, and Appellant has not asked us to revisit it. -16- rise to the level of creating a genuine dispute. Ms. Nettle’s claim that from “1993 to [her] termination date there were statements of discrimination by Mr. Hunter,” R. 89, is overly vague both as to pervasiveness and as to severity. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 674 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Vague, conclusory statements do not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact.”); see also Quevado v. Trans-Pacific Shipping, Inc., 143 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) provides that party opposing summary judgment must “set forth specific facts that show there is a genuine issue for trial.”). Ms. Nettle testified that at “every staff meeting” in 1993—a decade before she lodged her complaint with the EEOC—Mr. Hunter made “at least one” racial slur, R. 88, but after that she offers no evidence regarding the frequency of his offensive remarks, other than to say that “‘96 to around 1999 were favorable years for me in regard to the treatment.” R. 242. Nor does she supply much detail about the content of his comments. It is not even clear that most of Mr. Hunter’s comments were directed at her, or at persons of her ethnicity. She describes comments he made about Comanches, Cheyennes, and Cherokees, but those are not her tribes. 3 Although there is some confusion about this in the record, Ms. Nettle understood that Mr. Hunter’s ethnic makeup was similar to her own: both being half 3 Ms. Nettle testified that Mr. Hunter “had said things about the Cherokees, something about a room full of Cherokees makes like a full blood or something like that. And then he, you know, joked in there because I was there and I think he added the Delaware Tribe in on it.” R. 241-42. From her testimony, it does not appear that Mr. Hunter bore any particular animus against Ms. Nettle’s tribe. -17- Caucasian, and both affiliated with the Delaware Nation and the Caddo. It cannot be assumed that all of his “comments about different tribes, and about those whose skin is lighter or darker than others,” R. 390, related to her. Nor do any of the particular comments recalled by Ms. Nettle strike us as sufficiently severe or opprobrious (considered objectively) that a reasonable jury would regard them “alter[ing] the conditions of the victim’s employment and creat[ing] an abusive working environment.” MacKenzie, 414 F.3d at 1280. Certainly none of the comments directed at (or around) Ms. Nettle rose to the level of being physically threatening or humiliating. Chavez v. New Mexico, 397 F.3d 826, 832 (10th Cir. 2005) (in determining hostile work environment, factors to be considered include whether the discriminatory conduct is “physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance”). Many of the statements she complains about simply identify her as “white” or as not really an Indian. 4 Ms. Nettle testified that she “heard once” that Mr. Hunter said that the Delaware Tribe “was the tribal wannabes.” R. 241. We can easily understand that it could be annoying and irritating for a person of one racial mix to be mistaken for another, but there is no precedent for regarding a mistaken racial identifier—not employing any epithetical terminology—as opprobrious or abusive. 4 The dissent focuses on Robyn Sunday’s alleged description of her as “the big-boobed white Renee.” R. 366, 369. But the sting in the comment is its sexism, and Ms. Nettle has not complained of sex discrimination. -18- Moreover, as Ms. Nettle concedes, many of the comments were made jokingly. See, e.g., R. 219 (board president “making jest of Cherokees”) 5; id. at 220–21 (Dawn Singleton would “joke” about not going anywhere because she was not Indian and had blonde hair and green eyes); id. at 224 (Tracy Mailo would make “statements in jest at meetings regarding my skin color”); id. at 226 (explaining that she would interpret comments made “in jest . . . to be in light or not wanting to offend as much as in regard to statements being made that are intended to be disparaging in nature” and stating that “many” of Mr. Hunter’s comments “were intended to be in jest”); id. at 229 (offering that she no longer found a staff member’s comments offensive because as “the years wore on . . . I knew she didn’t mean [them] disparagingly”); id. at 241 (“[m]ost times” Mr. Hunter said something about a tribe it was “in jest.”). Where comments are made in jest and the plaintiff recognizes them as such, unless they are of unusual pervasiveness or severity, they cannot ordinarily be regarded as having “alter[ed] the conditions of the victim’s employment and create[d] an abusive working environment.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 22. The dissent merits a reply on three points. First, noting that some of Ms. Nettle’s patients, or the parents of her patients, would call her the “white doctor,” 5 The transcript of Ms. Nettle’s testimony spells the word as “gist” rather than “jest.” Because the context makes clear Ms. Nettle was speaking of “jesting” behavior, we have altered the transcript. See R. 91 (“Q. What do you mean, in gist? A. Just joking . . .”). -19- Aplt. Br. 37, R. 237–39, the dissent maintains that comments made by patients at the Clinic are “relevant to the present inquiry” and that it is not “determinative” that “the patients were not employees of the clinic.” Dissent 12. While our precedent does not categorically exclude comments made by patients or customers from consideration of a hostile work environment, we believe such claims are of little significance in the context of this case. Ms. Nettle’s patients were children, and there is no reason to think that their (or their parents’) identification of her as the “white doctor” was malicious, intended to be hurtful, or anything other than mistaken ethnic identification. Ms. Nettle testified that although she went through a stage where it hurt her to be called “white doctor,” and that this would make her “angry sometimes,” she “dealt with the children,” who trusted her, and she “didn’t find [the comments] as a problem at the very end” because she was so busy. R. 237. Moreover, Ms. Nettle presents no evidence that her employer encouraged her patients to refer to her as the “white doctor,” as opposed to “Ms. Nettle,” only that her co-workers would “hear” patients or their parents calling her white doctor and “participate in it.” R. 239. The dissent cites Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062, 1073 (10th Cir. 1998) to support its assertion that employers may be held responsible for the conduct of their customers, but the facts of Lockard are suggestive in defining the limitations on the argument. In Lockard, Ms. Lockard had been subjected to crude, sexually harassing comments and physically threatening conduct (grabbing -20- her hair and breast) from a group of customers. Id. at 1072. When told that she did not want to serve the harassing customers, as she had on three previous occasions, her employer responded that she was “hired to be a waitress” and that she needed to go serve them. Id. at 1067, 1074–75. Both the nature of the comments and the character of the employer’s actions are obviously far afield from those that confronted Ms. Nettle at the Indian Clinic. We do not believe the facts show that Ms. Nettle’s employer “condone[d] or tolerate[d]” a hostile work environment based on the scattered comments of her patients or their parents. Id. at 1073–74. Second, the dissent downplays the fact that many of the relevant comments were made in jest. The dissent claims that the “[w]hether a comment is intended to be insulting or ‘in jest’ is irrelevant to whether there is a steady barrage of opprobrious comments.” Dissent 6. But the case cited by the dissent holds only that comments need not be directed at or intended to be received by the victim to be evidence of a hostile work environment. EEOC v. PVNF, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790, 798 (10th Cir. 2007). In that case, we held that vulgar e-mail not intended for a recipient, but nonetheless intercepted by her, could be evidence of discrimination. This does not mean that the nonmalicious character of comments, as understood both by the speakers and by the recipient of the messages, is “irrelevant” to whether they create a “hostile” or abusive work environment. PVNF does not hold otherwise, and our caselaw supports the point, under -21- circumstances arguably more humiliating than these. See, e.g., Denetclaw v. Thoutt Bros. Concrete Contractors, 287 Fed. App’x 17, 22 (10th Cir. 2008) (discrimination against Native American who was frequently asked to perform “rain dances” found not to be severe in part because plaintiff himself “characterized [the remarks] as joking and kidding”). Of course, what is funny to one person may be deeply offensive to another. What the speaker intended by his remark is not dispositive, and racial insults are not permissible merely because the speaker regards them as humorous. But Ms. Nettle herself says that she interpreted many of the comments made by Mr. Hunter and others as joking, and not disparaging, because she knew they were not intended to offend. See R. 240 (calling the years 1996–1999 as “good years” in which Mr. Hunter did not say anything “directly in regard to [Ms. Nettle] other than in jest.”); id. at 241 (distinguishing between comments that were “in jest” and those that were “disparaging”). When evaluating the totality of the circumstances, we cannot disregard the distinction between jesting and insulting. Third, the dissent takes us to task for failing to consider the fact that Ms. Nettle was not selected to represent the Clinic at certain events in our analysis of the “totality of circumstances” analysis in the previous section. Dissent 13–14. In her testimony, Ms. Nettle pointed to not being allowed to attend the Heritage Celebration at the state capitol and a Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center event, allegedly because as a light-skinned Native American, she did not -22- “represent” Native Americans well. R. 264; see also R. 362. We disagree that not being able to attend two events which, as we note in the following section, were only at best a discretionary part of her job, amounts to discrimination that is “severe.” Nor does the fact of being prevented from attending two events from a many-year career show that Ms. Nettle experienced “pervasive” discrimination during her employment at the Clinic. From the record, we can see that at many points during her employment, the Clinic was not a pleasant place for Ms. Nettle to work. People said crude things, pet projects were taken away from her, and she was made to feel singled out because of her Caucasian appearance. But Title VII’s standard for redress is a hostile work environment, not an unpleasant one. See, e.g., Duncan v. Manager, Dept. of Safety, City & County of Denver, 397 F.3d 1300, 1313–14 (10th Cir. 2005) (Title VII provides no remedy for boorish behavior or bad taste); Sprague v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 129 F.3d 1355, 1366 (10th Cir. 1997) (unpleasant and boorish conduct does not create a hostile work environment). Incidents spread out over many years, and which indicate mostly poor taste and lack of professionalism, do not rise to the level of a hostile work environment. See, e.g., Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 155 F.3d 1257, 1263 (10th Cir. 1998). With all due respect to the dissent, we believe that the dissent’s standard for pervasiveness and severity falls short of what this court and the Supreme -23- Court have set forth, and would make a broad swath of American workplaces subject to liability under Title VII. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that the Indian Clinic is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Nettle’s hostile work environment claim.
Under Title VII, an employer may not “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In order to show discrimination Ms. Nettle must establish that (1) she is the member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position at issue; and (4) she was treated less favorably than others not in the protected class. Piercy v. Maketa, 480 F.3d 1192, 1203 (10th Cir. 2007). The Clinic does not dispute that Ms. Nettle is in a protected class, which she has “described as ‘light-skinned Native Americans.’” Dist. Ct. Op. 16. The district court, however, agreed with the Clinic that Ms. Nettle failed to make the necessary primary showing that she had suffered an adverse employment action. Id. at 18. Ms. Nettle concedes that in the period identified in her first EEOC charge—March 10, 2004 to October 20, 2004—she “did not lose any salary nor receive an official demotion” but that nonetheless “the evidence shows that the terms and conditions of her employment were altered.” Aplt. Br. 38–39. Ms. -24- Nettle points to the removal of Thanksgiving and Christmas Drives from her job functions (programs which she had started); her relocation to a new office; not being allowed to set up a booth at the Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center; and being pulled from attending Native American Heritage week at the state capital, among other things. R. 168–69, 362. It is not evident from the record that the removal of the Thanksgiving and Christmas programs occurred within the time period in which Ms. Nettle alleged discrimination, but even if it did, we do not see any of the events cited by Ms. Nettle affecting her terms and conditions of employment. Although we take a “case by case approach,” and do not limit ourselves to finding monetary loses or loss of benefits to constitute an adverse action, the action must rise above the level of “a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.” Sanchez v. Denver Pub. Sch., 164 F.3d 527, 532 (10th Cir. 1998). Ms. Nettle’s job description included a clause that said she would be required to “perform[] other duties as assigned.” R. 205, 404. She said in her deposition that she considered the Thanksgiving and Christmas drives to be part of the assigned duties. R. 206. But there is no inconsistency with the job description that some duties, once assigned, should later be unassigned as necessary. Moreover, the various additional duties she was given do not reach the core of the description of her position as “Native American Youth Specialist”: “to provide Health Promotion/Disease Prevention services directed towards American -25- Indian youth for the Community Services Department.” R. 403. The fact that Ms. Nettle was prevented from attending some external events does not represent a significant change in her employment status. See Piercy, 480 F.3d at 1203 (adverse employment action includes “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” (citation omitted)). Because we hold that Ms. Nettle did not suffer an adverse employment action, we do not reach the other steps in the test for showing discrimination.