Opinion ID: 3048916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hostile Work Environment Legal Principles

Text: A Title VII hostile work environment claim is established upon proof that “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.” Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299, 1311 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff must show that: (1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she has been subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on a protected characteristic, such as religion or sex; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) the employer is responsible for such an environment. See Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 808 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a). 3 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Chapter 7 Tr. v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 683 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 7 Case: 13-15914 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 8 of 14 It is a “bedrock principle that not all objectionable conduct or language amounts to discrimination under Title VII.” Id. at 809. Therefore, only conduct that is “based on” a protected category, such as religion or gender, may be considered in a hostile work environment analysis. Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 583-84 (11th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006). As we have stated, “[i]nnocuous statements or conduct, or boorish ones” unrelated to a protected ground are not counted. Id. at 583. Title VII does not enact a “general civility code” and does not make actionable ordinary workplace tribulations. Cotton v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 434 F.3d 1227, 1234 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). The fourth element of the hostile work environment test—whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive—contains both a subjective and objective component. Reeves, 594 F.3d at 809. The employee must “subjectively perceive” the harassment as severe or pervasive enough to change the terms or conditions of employment, and this perception must be objectively reasonable. Id. at 808-09 (quotation marks omitted). In evaluating the objective component, we consider the allegedly discriminatory conduct’s “frequency; 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. (quotation 8 Case: 13-15914 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 9 of 14 marks and ellipses omitted). The harassment’s objective severity or pervasiveness “should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering all the circumstances.” Id. at 809 (quotation marks omitted).