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

Heading: Frequency of the Unwelcome Conduct

Text: We find ample evidence before the jury to support a conclusion of both frequent and unwelcome conduct. More specifically, the evidence established: (a) Ms. Conner was required to mop the entire floor several times each week, while her supervisors led her coworkers in ridiculing, belittling, and mocking her. See supra § II.B.4. Unlike the male machine operators, she was not allowed time to clean the heavy layer of machine oil off of herself before her breaks began. See supra § II.B.9. She was followed and timed with a stopwatch during her breaks for approximately six weeks. Id. (b) On a regular basis, her work assignments were not comparable to those of the male operators, as demonstrated by the contrast between the number of hours Ms. Conner spent on the advanced tasks of unplanned tool setting and machine set-up, as compared to the male operators. See supra § II.B.3. (c) When the men learned the advanced tool setting and machine set-up skills, they were promoted to a higher 23 pay grade, unlike Ms. Conner. See supra§ II.B.8. SBI's failure to pay Ms. Conner comparably affected her daily from November 1993 until her termination in May 1995, and was particularly egregious because: (i) she was one of the most capable employees in the Department (according to Boyd and Schaefer); and (ii) she even came to the plant on her non-work days to perform advanced tasks for men who were incapable of performing them and were themselves paid at the higher rate. Id. (d) Schaefer repeatedly and inappropriately asked Ms. Conner if she was on the rag. See supra § II.B.5. (e) Schaefer repeatedly and inappropriately asked Ms. Conner if she got any last night. See supra § II.B.5. (f) Approximately ten different times, Ms. Conner was not permitted to leave the factory floor until, each time, she showed her supervisor the blood from her uterine hemorrhaging. See supra § II.B.6. The frequency and regularity of the unwelcome conduct established by the evidence here is similar to that underlying our decision in Amirmokri v. Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co., 60 F.3d 1126 (4th Cir. 1995). In Amirmokri, a supervisor and co-workers referred to the plaintiff by derogatory nicknames almost daily, just as Schaefer often used gender-based taunts to ridicule Ms. Conner. See Amirmokri, 60 F.3d at 1131. Like the plaintiff in Amirmokri , Ms. Conner experienced frequent humiliation because she was given work assignments that were more difficult than those of her co-workers. Id. The regularity of the unwelcome conduct here is entirely different from the few, scattered remarks that we determined were merelyoffensive in Hartsell v. Duplex Products, Inc., 123 F.3d 766 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting four instances of others' gender-based derogatory office commentary). Further, unlike the plaintiff in Hartsell, who herself uttered numerous vulgarities in the workplace, Ms. Conner was the regular target of the unwelcome conduct rather than a willing participant in such conduct. See Hartsell, 123 F.3d at 773. There was therefore 24 ample evidence before the jury establishing that Ms. Conner experienced frequent and unwelcome gender-based hostile conduct.