Opinion ID: 215507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hostile Work Environment/Sexual Harassment

Text: Dr. Wilkie next asserts that the district court impermissibly weighed the evidence in concluding that she failed to prove that the alleged sexual harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment and that her employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. To establish a prima facie claim of hostile work environment by non-supervisory co-workers, a plaintiff must show (1) that she belongs to a protected group; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on her membership in a protected group; (4) that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment by creating a hostile work environment; and (5) that the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action. Cross v. Prairie Meadows Racetrack & Casino, Inc., 615 F.3d 977, 981 (8th Cir. 2010). Dr. Wilkie satisfied the first two elements of her prima facie case. With regard to the third element, Dr. Wilkie must establish that the harassment was based on her gender. As explained supra, we will not consider the 2004 incidents of Bercier's misconduct because they are time barred. And, we agree with the district court that Dr. Wilkie has failed to show how the 2005 incidents, with the exception of Bercier's comment to Dr. Earls that Dr. Wilkie and Dr. Plasse were having an affair, qualified as harassment based upon gender. See McDonnell v. Cisneros, 84 F.3d 256, 259-60 (7th Cir. 1996) (Unfounded accusations that a woman worker is a `whore,' a siren, carrying on with her coworkers, a Circe, `sleeping her way to the top,' and so forth are capable of making the workplace unbearable for the woman verbally so harassed, and since these are accusations based on the fact that she is a woman, they could constitute a form of sexual harassment.). For purposes of this appeal we will assume, without deciding, that the allegation that Bercier spread a rumor that Dr. Wilkie was having an affair with Dr. Plasse is harassment based on Dr. Wilkie's gender thus satisfying the third element of the prima facie case. See id. Dr. Wilkie must also prove that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment by creating a hostile work environment. Cross, 615 F.3d at 981. We have previously noted that [t]he standard for demonstrating a hostile work environment on the basis of sexual harassment is a demanding one and that Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment and it is not a general civility code for the American workplace. Id. (quotation and citations omitted). [M]erely rude or unpleasant conduct is insufficient to support a claim; instead, [a]ctionable conduct must ... be extreme. Id. A plaintiff must establish that discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult permeated the workplace. Id. We consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether a plaintiff demonstrated a hostile work environment. Id. Factors we consider include the frequency and severity of the conduct, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's job performance. Id. We find, as a matter of law, that Bercier's alleged rumor-spreading was not [harassment] so severe or pervasive that it met the high threshold for a hostile work environment. See id. As the district court noted, this single act of discriminatory conduct is insufficient to establish that the work environment was so permeated with discriminatory conduct that it altered a term, condition, or privilege of her employment. Id. Numerous cases have rejected hostile work environment claims premised upon facts equally or more egregious than the conduct at issue here. Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 934 (8th Cir.2002) (citing Shepherd v. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, 168 F.3d 871, 872, 874 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that several incidents over a two-year period, including the comment your elbows are the same color as your nipples, another comment that plaintiff had big thighs, repeated touching of plaintiff's arm, and attempts to look down the plaintiff's dress, were insufficient to support hostile work environment claim); Adusumilli v. City of Chi., 164 F.3d 353, 357, 361-62 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding conduct insufficient to support hostile environment claim when employee teased plaintiff, made sexual jokes aimed at her, told her not to wave at police officers because people would think she was a prostitute, commented about low-necked tops, leered at her breasts, and touched her arm, fingers, or buttocks on four occasions); Black v. Zaring Homes, Inc., 104 F.3d 822, 823-24, 826 (6th Cir. 1997) (reversing jury verdict and holding behavior merely offensive and insufficient to support hostile environment claim when employee reached across plaintiff, stating [n]othing I like more in the morning than sticky buns while staring at her suggestively; suggested to plaintiff that parcel of land be named Hootersville, Titsville, or Twin Peaks; and asked weren't you there Saturday night dancing on the tables? while discussing property near a biker bar); Weiss v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chi., 990 F.2d 333, 337 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding no sexual harassment when plaintiff's supervisor asked plaintiff for dates, asked about her personal life, called her a dumb blond, put his hand on her shoulder several times, placed I love you signs at her work station, and attempted to kiss her twice at work and once in a bar)).