Opinion ID: 147194
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Racially hostile work environment

Text: Courts apply the same standards to evaluate a hostile work environment claim under § 1981 as under Title VII. Ross v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1050 (8th Cir.2002). To sustain a claim for hostile work environment, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she is subjected to unwelcome race-based harassment; (3) the harassment was because of membership in the protected class; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of his or her employment. Singletary v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 423 F.3d 886, 892 (8th Cir.2005). The workplace must be permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe and pervasive. Id. (quotation omitted). The environment must be both objectively hostile as perceived by a reasonable person and subjectively abusive as actually viewed by Anderson. Bowen v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 311 F.3d 878, 883 (8th Cir.2002). In examining the objective component, we look to the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance and whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with the employee's work performance. Singletary, 423 F.3d at 893. We also consider the physical proximity to the harasser, and the presence or absence of other people. Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 702 (8th Cir.1999). Finally, when a plaintiff attempts to establish a hostile work environment based on the actions of co-workers, he or she must then present evidence that the employer `knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to respond in a prompt and effective manner.' Arraleh v. County of Ramsey, 461 F.3d 967, 969 (8th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). Hostile work environment claims must meet demanding standards and courts are to filter out those complaints concerning the ordinary tribulations of the workplace. Al-Zubaidy v. TEK Indus., Inc., 406 F.3d 1030, 1039 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted). [S]imple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment. Arraleh, 461 F.3d at 979. Mere utterance of an epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate § 1981. Elmahdi v. Marriott Hotel Servs., 339 F.3d 645, 653 (8th Cir.2003) (internal quotations, alteration, and citation omitted). None of the actions by Durham managers establish a racially hostile work environment. Anderson offers little more than speculation and conjecture that Chapman's name calling and McGee's nitpicking and ridicule had anything to do with race. [5] Palesch v. Mo. Comm'n on Human Rights, 233 F.3d 560, 567-68 (8th Cir.2000). Nor has he shown this behavior was objectively severe enough to give rise to a claim. See Helton v. Southland Racing Corp., 600 F.3d 954, 959-60 (8th Cir.2010) (rude and demeaning conduct by supervisor insufficient); O'Brien v. Dep't of Ag., 532 F.3d 805, 810 (8th Cir.2008) (increased scrutiny insufficient on the record); Bradley v. Widnall, 232 F.3d 626, 631-32 (8th Cir.2000) (frustrating work situation insufficient). We address additional allegations regarding managers' preferential treatment of African American employees below; for purposes here, however, we note only that none of the managers' actions were overtly racist and Anderson has produced insufficient evidence of disparate treatment to give rise to an inference that their actions were racially motivated. We also conclude that Anderson cannot establish Durham's liability for a racially hostile work environment based on his fellow employees' conduct. On appeal, Anderson has primarily focused his arguments on the name calling by the group of African American employees who stood outside Durham's office. Even assuming the conduct was objectively severe, we agree with Durham that there is insufficient evidence management was aware of the racial nature of the harassment. The record does not establish that any manager was physically present when the name calling occurred; any subjective belief on Anderson's part that Chapman heard the language from the office cannot defeat summary judgment on this point. Anderson acknowledged that he told Chapman he was being called names and that the employees were foulmouthed. He has failed to point to any evidence indicating that he even suggested to her these comments were racially motivated. See Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 523 (8th Cir.2002) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff failed to declare, indicate, or even imply that the incident had anything to do with race). Even considering Anderson's testimony that he complained to Chapman about Owens's racial comments, we cannot say on this record that Chapman should have realized that the name calling, by different employees under dissimilar circumstances, was racially motivated as well. Nor has he shown that such harassment was so widespread during his employment that Durham should have known about the racial nature of the harassment for that reason either. Cf. Hall v. Gus Constr. Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 1010, 1015-16 (8th Cir.1988). As noted, Owens, Anderson's monitor, allegedly made repeated racial comments during Anderson's short employment of which Chapman was aware; however, the frequency of the alleged harassment is only one of the relevant factors we consider in determining whether harassment is objectively severe. From Anderson descriptions of his interactions with her, we cannot detect any of the physically threatening or intimidating behavior that we have found important in some actionable cases. See, e.g., Reedy v. Quebecor Printing Eagle, Inc., 333 F.3d 906, 909-10 (8th Cir.2003); Bowen, 311 F.3d at 884-85. Anderson also acknowledged during deposition that at some point after his complaints to Chapman, Durham separated him from Owens. Finally, we question, as did the district court, how subjectively severe Anderson considered the harassment to be, and Owens's in particular. Anderson voluntarily returned to Durham of his own accord after initially refusing to take the driving test. He also indicated that he would probably have remained at Durham after being removed as a driver had he been offered the same pay to serve as a monitor and acknowledged that suggested that his wife apply for a job at Durham. This evidence indicates that while this conduct may have certainly offended Anderson, it did not subjectively alter the conditions of his employment.