Opinion ID: 145609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remaining Title VII Claims

Text: Roman also claims defendant created a hostile work environment in order to retaliate against her. Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76, 88-90 (1st Cir.2005). In order to prove a hostile work environment, [Roman] must show that she was subjected to severe or pervasive harassment that materially altered the conditions of her employment. Id. at 92. To find a hostile work environment, [t]he harassment must be `objectively and subjectively offensive,' id. (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998)), and we only consider those actions, directed at a complainant, that stem from a retaliatory animus. Id. at 93. None of the acts we have already discussed comes close to creating a hostile work environment, nor do the other miscellaneous matters set forth in the brief. Roman was not impaired from doing her job. In fact, during the period in which Roman alleges the hostile work environment existed, Roman received a $1,000 pay-for-performance award from the USPS. Her constructive discharge claim also plainly fails. Roman would have to show that her working conditions were `so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in [her] shoes would have felt compelled to resign.' Marrero v. Goya of Puerto Rico, Inc., 304 F.3d 7, 28 (1st Cir.2002) (quoting Alicea Rosado v. Garcia Santiago, 562 F.2d 114, 119 (1st Cir.1977)) (alteration in original). The standard is an objective one; it `cannot be triggered solely by an employee's subjective beliefs, no matter how sincerely held.' Id. (quoting Suarez v. Pueblo Int'l Inc., 229 F.3d 49, 54 (1st Cir.2000)). Nothing Roman has alleged was so difficult or unpleasant as to have compelled her to resign, regardless of whether Roman has shown retaliatory animus, which she has not. [6]