Opinion ID: 592900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complaint Three: A Legally Cognizable Injury

Text: 16 Ransom's third complaint is that the Depot violated 42 U.S.C. 2003-3(a) by retaliating against him for bringing his discrimination claims. Ransom alleges that his supervisor's written appraisal of his performance included two derogatory remarks. He also claims that his supervisor singled him out by threatening to keep a black book on him and no one else, which would be used to deny him promotions and overtime. Finally, Ransom was also singled out by being sent to remedial training program with a co-worker who had also filed complaints with the EEOC. 17 The district court dismissed this third complaint because none of the three incidents which Ransom describes render him aggrieved under Title VII. In dismissing the complaint, the court noted that the two derogatory remarks in question had been removed from Ransom's file and no others had been added. It also observed that no further objectionable remarks had been added to the file and that in any event, it was the supervisor's responsibility to inform Ransom that his work-related actions would be documented for future performance appraisals. 18 However, Ransom contends that when viewed together, these three incidents of reprisal trace a pattern of harassment and intimidation which describes a hostile work environment. In Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 877 (9th Cir.1991), we indicated that conduct which unreasonably interferes with work performance can alter a condition of employment and create an abusive work environment. Construing his pleadings liberally, we cannot say that Ransom's allegations do not meet the standard for a hostile or abusive working environment. For example, even though two prior negative reports had been removed from his work record, the threat of Ransom's supervisors to single his work out for special critical scrutiny could have made him so nervous as to hinder his job performance. 19 It is of no import that Ransom did not cast his reprisal complaint in terms of a hostile work environment in his argument before the district court. We are obliged to deny a motion to dismiss if the allegations provide for relief on any possible legal theory, whether or not raised by the plaintiff. Electrical Constr. & Maintenance Co. v. Maeda Pac. Corp., 764 F.2d 619, 622-23 (1985). Moreover, the legal novelty of his hybrid reprisal and hostile work environment claim renders us all the more reluctant to dismiss the complaint. Id. 20 The district court's order of dismissal is AFFIRMED with regard to the first complaint and REVERSED with regard to the second and third complaints.