Opinion ID: 712765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coworker Harassment

Text: 19 The 1990 episode 5 in which two coworkers displayed Ritzert-Smith's bra, though arguably significant, was isolated. Casual, isolated or trivial manifestations of a discriminatory environment do not affect the terms or conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate the law. Id.; see also Candelore v. Clark Cty. Sanitation Dist., 975 F.2d 588, 590 (9th Cir.1992) (isolated incidents of sexual horseplay do not amount to a hostile work environment). This single incident is not enough, by itself or in conjunction with the other competent evidence presented, to survive summary judgment. Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1463 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994) (required showing of severity  'varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct' ) (quoting Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 878 (9th Cir.1991)). 20 Ritzert-Smith has not establish[ed] the existence of an element essential to [her] case, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986): she has not shown that the harassment was persistent and severe. Payne, 77 Wn.App. at 515, 892 P.2d at 1107; see also Gross, 53 F.3d at 1537-45 (affirming summary judgment after analyzing evidence of hostile environment). The court did not err in granting summary judgment on this claim.