Opinion ID: 4512610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation

Text: Harper survives summary judgment if she shows that the harassment was severe or pervasive. See Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 1999) (hostile work environment); Kentucky Dep’t of Corr. v. Furr, Nos. 2004-CA-000526-MR, 2004-CA-000668- -3- Case No. 19-5475, Harper v. Elder, et al. MR, 2006 WL 2032947, at  (Ky. Ct. App. July 21, 2006) (retaliation). When assessing the totality of Harper’s proffered evidence, district courts should look to the harassment’s frequency, severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with work performance. Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993); see also Becker v. Saber Mgmt.-Kentucky, LLC, No. 2009-CA-000089-MR, 2009 WL 4060859, at –4 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2009). For starters, Harper testified that she “was scared of Conaway” (he stood 6'6) and that she viewed Conaway’s actions as laden with “hostility and harassment.” She described conduct that, taken together, could make a reasonable person in Harper’s position feel that her workplace is hostile: (1) Conaway chastised her for arguing with a co-worker; (2) he “yell[ed]” at Harper for refusing to follow his orders though at the time the two of them ranked the same; (3) another time, Conaway tried “to force” her to distribute inmate medication despite being unlicensed to do so; (4) she and Conaway had a “very, very heated” argument after Conaway overrode her orders; (5) afterward Conaway sped his pickup truck toward her; (6) he “yell[ed] at” Harper for incorrectly performing an inmate headcount when she had followed procedure; and (7) Conaway later “screamed” at Harper to “mind [her] own business” after she reported inappropriate conduct between a deputy and an inmate. Harper claims the harassment “was an every day thing.” When pressed, she confirmed, “it was a daily thing.” These examples illustrate a years-long “succession of harassing acts.” Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 638 (2007). As for her claim against Elder, Harper’s deposition confirms that she reported Conaway’s conduct “very often”—“several times a month, at least,” to no avail. Harper’s Monell claim against the County is supported on the same basis. -4- Case No. 19-5475, Harper v. Elder, et al. And as for the requirement that the harassment “unreasonably interfere” with Harper’s work performance, Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, her migraines and nausea eventually escalated “to the point where [she] was having trouble functioning,” prompting her doctor to prescribe medical leave. To be sure, Conaway, Elder, the County, and their witnesses dispute much of Harper’s testimony. But courts neither assess witness credibility nor weigh evidence at the summary judgment stage. Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 168 (6th Cir. 2011). Drawing all reasonable inferences in Harper’s favor, Babb, 942 F.3d at 311, we must reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Harper’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims.