Opinion ID: 4420123
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 46; see also A. 54.

Text: 3 Id. 4 A. 47, see also A. 54–55. 3 lipstick?”; 5 (4) he posted a picture of a “bedazzled” vagina, which Chinery believed was directed at her friend for defending Chinery on Facebook; 6 (5) according to Chinery, he posted a picture of the Wicked Witch of the West with the caption “I don’t have time for basic bitches,” which she argues was about her. 7 • About nine months after the election ended, Chinery was ordered to attend a disciplinary meeting based on allegations that she had taken a video of one of American’s vendors without permission. 8 The meeting was rescheduled, and after a fourth flight attendant learned about the delay, he wrote on his personal Facebook page, “HOLY SHIT! I knew it!! Flipper has NOT had her meeting yet!” 9 Chinery claims that “Flipper” is a derogatory term and that the comment was about her. Chinery complained about these posts to American’s human resources department. Although there was an investigation, it was ultimately closed after the investigator determined that her claims were meritless. 10 Chinery claims that the investigator failed to adequately address her concerns and that American could have enforced its social media policy against the flight attendants at issue but chose not to. Based on these alleged failures, Chinery filed a complaint before the District Court, raising disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims under federal and state law. American moved for summary judgment, and the District Court granted the motion on all of Chinery’s claims. With respect to her hostile work environment claim, 5 A. 142. 6 A. 98. 7 A. 54. The District Court, however, could not locate evidence of this image in the record. Chinery, 2018 WL 4055308, at  n.1. 8 Ultimately, Chinery was cleared of wrongdoing and was not disciplined. 9 A. 49; see also A. 57. 10 Before American closed its investigation, Chinery filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was also “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes,” and determined that American was required to take “[n]o action.” S.A. 17, 19. 4 the Court concluded that no reasonable trier of fact could find that the Facebook posts were “so objectively severe or pervasive that [they] would unreasonably interfere with an employee’s work performance.” 11 Chinery timely appealed.