Opinion ID: 712765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Behavior of Hill

Text: 18 In this context, as in the equal pay context, the behavior attributed to Hill is disturbing. His comments are, however, mere offensive utterance[s]. Harris, 114 S.Ct. at 371. And Ritzert-Smith does not establish when or how often Hill made the comments she relates. Id. (frequency of harassment is a factor to be weighed in determining whether hostile work environment exists). Hill was not her direct supervisor; there is nothing in the record to suggest they had regular contact. Id. (harassment must be pervasive enough to affect working conditions). Finally, it is unclear whether Hill was a management-level employee, so that his conduct is directly attributable to Siemens, or a lower-level supervisor whose conduct is actionable only if Siemens had knowledge of it and did not take appropriate steps to remedy the situation. Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 103 Wn.2d 401, 406, 693 P.2d 708, 712 (1985) (plaintiff has burden of showing that conduct can be imputed to employer).