Opinion ID: 2967284
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: male employees mocked Ms. Conner when her

Text: machine malfunctioned; (2) her supervisor asked her, Didn't you get any last night? and Are you on the rag?; (3) she and the other women were forced to mop the floor when their machines broke down and were told in a condescending manner that at least [they] could mop the floor; (4) she was singled out for discipline relating to her absences; (5) Schaffer made her remove the rags that she used to cover her bloodstained pants; (6) she was timed with a stopwatch when she went to the bathroom; (7) she was assigned to machines at opposite ends of the factory, requiring her to run back and forth; 18 (8) she was given less training than male machine operators; and (9) in response to her complaints of unfair disparate treatment, Giudice threatened to fire her if she ever mentioned the words sexual harassment. J.A. 1095-96. However, the district court erred when it analyzed these categories of Ms. Conner's evidence in a disaggregated fashion, contrary to Harris's totality of the circumstances test. The court concluded that the only allegations that are even remotely close to meeting the severe and pervasive threshold are the comments, `Are you on the rag?' and `Didn't you get any last night?' and the court analyzed those comments independently of the totality of the situation. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 8182 (1998) (The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed.); Williams v. General Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 562-63 (6th Cir. 1999) (evidence of sexually related remarks, foul language, and mean and inequitable treatment by co-workers gave rise to a jury question, because impact of separate successive incidents may accumulate to create hostile environment); Jackson v. Quanex Corp., 191 F.3d 647, 660 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (improper to consider each offensive event in isolation, as the very meaning of `environment' is `[t]he surrounding conditions, influences or forces which influence or modify). The district court characterized [t]he mocking, the mopping, the singling out for discipline, the timing with the stopwatch, the machine assignments, the disparate training and the threats by Giudice as merely evidence revealing the work environment to be `unpleasant and sometimes cruel.' It then dismissed each of these types of conduct as at most bothersome incidents. J.A. 1097 (citation omitted). In this regard, in addition to improperly disaggregating the incidents from the whole, the district court adopted the view that these incidents were not discriminatory, and thus erred by failing to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Ms. Conner. Cf. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., No. 99-536, slip op. at 17 (U.S. June 12, 2000) 19 (court misapplied standard of review under Rule 50 by disregarding evidence that supported plaintiff's prima facie case and undermined the employer's nondiscriminatory explanation).