Opinion ID: 2613491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the hostile work environment claim.

Text: The employee asserts that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment dismissing her hostile work environment claim. We agree. In De Los Santos v. J.R. Simplot Co., 126 Idaho 963, 895 P.2d 564 (1995), this Court held that a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim requires that: 1. the employee must be subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other conduct of a sexual nature; 2. this conduct must be unwelcome; and 3. the conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the employee's employment and create an abusive working environment. Id. at 967, 895 P.2d at 568; see also Fowler v. Kootenai County, 128 Idaho 740, 918 P.2d 1185 (1996) (holding that a hostile work environment under the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA) requires that the work environment be both subjectively and objectively perceived as hostile based on totality of the circumstances, and rejecting a based on sex requirement); Paterson v. State, 128 Idaho 494, 915 P.2d 724 (1996) (holding that a hostile work environment claim can not establish more than one violation of IHRA). In order to show that a work environment was sufficiently hostile, a plaintiff must show the occurrence of numerous improper acts which establish a pattern of conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. Paterson, 128 Idaho at 500, 915 P.2d at 730 (citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)). The De Los Santos standard was based on a 1991 Ninth Circuit case involving gender-based sexual harassment, Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir.1991). De Los Santos, 126 Idaho at 967, 895 P.2d at 568. The present case involves sex discrimination based on gender-specific discrimination rather than overt sexual conduct. The De Los Santos standard is not applicable to hostile work environment claims involving gender-specific discrimination claims. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et. seq. (Title VII) makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual on the basis of the individual's gender. Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 63, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines, 29 CFR § 1600 et seq., provide that Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Id. at 65, 106 S.Ct. at 2405. Hostile environment claims have been brought for discrimination cases involving race, religion, national origin, and sex. Id. at 66, 106 S.Ct. at 2405. [A] plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment. Id. at 66, 106 S.Ct. at 2405. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue of hostile environment claims under Title VII, reaffirming the Meritor Savings holding that conduct that is severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment based on employees' gender is a violation of Title VII. Harris, 510 U.S. at 20-23, 114 S.Ct. at 370 (quoting Meritor Sav., 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405-06). The Court also stated that in determining whether an environment is hostile or abusive, the courts should look at all the circumstances including: the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Id. at 23, 114 S.Ct. at 371. Sexual conduct is not a necessary element of a hostile environment claim based on gender-specific discrimination. See Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1463 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 733, 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995) (Sexual or gender-based conduct which is abusive, humiliating, or threatening violates Title VII....); Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir.1995) (gender discrimination case under Title VII based on hostile environment); Hall v. Gus Constr. Co., 842 F.2d 1010, 1013-14 (8th Cir.1988) (predicate acts underlying hostile environment claim need not be sexual in nature); Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482-5 (3d Cir.1990) (offensive conduct does not necessarily require sexual overtones). In Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a hostile environment exists when the workplace is permeated with `discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,' that is `sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.' Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. at 370 (citations omitted) (quoting Meritor Sav., 477 U.S. at 65, 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2404, 2405). In the present case, the trial court applied the Harris standard for proving hostile work environment and specifically stated that sexual conduct is not necessary for a hostile environment claim. The trial court stated, however, that because the discriminatory conduct was not pervasive, the employee did not make a prima facie case. The court did note that the affidavits of two former employees of the employer demonstrate a generally hostile work environment. The evidence presented in connection with the motions for summary judgment indicates that not only was the employee treated differently than her male counterparts in the amount of travelling she was required to do, but that her job was relocated to a city to which the director knew the employee would not move, and that she was criticized for taking sick leave. The affidavits of the two former employees indicate that they were treated differently because of their gender. The standard of review we apply in determining whether summary judgment should have been granted is well established. In summary judgment proceedings the facts are to be liberally construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, who is also to be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which might be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Summary judgment shall be granted if the court determines that the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. I.R.C.P. 56(c). If the record supports conflicting inferences, or if reasonable minds might reach different conclusions, summary judgment must be denied. In reviewing a lower court's decision on summary judgment, the standard of review is whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and, if not whether the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wadsworth v. Department of Transp., 128 Idaho 439, 441, 915 P.2d 1, 3 (1996). In reviewing the evidence submitted in connection with the employer's motion for summary judgment in the present case, we liberally construe the facts in favor of the employee and resolve all doubts against the employer. The motion should have been denied if conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence submitted, and if reasonable people might have reached different conclusions as to whether there was conduct severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment based on the employee's gender. Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, 115 Idaho 266, 271, 766 P.2d 736, 741 (1988) (overturning summary judgment that a city was not wilful and wanton in its conduct); see also Stansbury v. Blue Cross of Idaho Health Serv., Inc., 128 Idaho 682, 918 P.2d 266 (1996) (overturning summary judgment that an employer had reasonably accommodated an employee's disabilities). Applying these standards, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether there was conduct severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment based on the employee's gender.