Opinion ID: 3048916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Religious Harassment Claim

Text: Byrd’s religiously-based hostile work environment claim is based on the conduct of one of Byrd’s former co-workers, Kay Dexter, who is a fervent Christian.4 While at work, Dexter sung religious songs, quoted religious scripture, and preached. Dexter often spoke to her co-workers about the Bible. As Byrd acknowledges, Old National allowed Dexter to engage in this behavior before Byrd began working at Old National, and Dexter’s “standard topic of conversation” with anyone at Old National was religion. Dexter also conversed with Byrd about religion, asking how often Byrd went to church and whether she read the Bible. Byrd told Dexter that Byrd was “nondenominational” and that her “religious beliefs allow [her] to let everyone practice what they choose to practice.” 5 Over a six-month period, from October 2004 until Byrd went on leave, Dexter referred to Byrd as the devil and Satan an 4 Kay Dexter is Byrd’s co-worker, not her supervisor. 5 “The term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Like the district court, we assume, arguendo, that Byrd has shown that her beliefs qualify as a religion under Title VII. 9 Case: 13-15914 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 10 of 14 unspecified number of times. On one occasion, Dexter told Byrd she would go to Hell because he did not believe in Jesus. We assume, arguendo, that Dexter’s complained-of conduct was based on the protected category of religion. Nevertheless, we conclude that Dexter’s conduct—consisting of Dexter’s (1) singing of religious songs, quoting religious scripture, preaching, and speaking about Church and the Bible; (2) referring to Byrd as the devil and Satan an unspecified number of times over a six-month period; and (3) informing Byrd that she would go to Hell for not believing in Jesus on one occasion—did not create a hostile work environment. Even considering these incidents cumulatively, a jury could not reasonably find that this conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to be objectively hostile and abusive, and thus, this conduct does not satisfy the fourth element of a hostile work environment claim. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Byrd’s religiously-based hostile work environment claim. 6