Opinion ID: 2995563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: To maintain an actionable claim

Text: under this theory, an employee must demonstrate that her co-worker or supervisor harassed her because of her sex. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). In addition, this harassment must be so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786 (1998) (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986)). Moreover, a hostile work environment is one that is both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 787; Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc., 218 F.3d 798, 807 (7th Cir. 2000). In determining whether contested conduct actually creates an objectively hostile work environment, a number of factors may be considered including frequency of the discriminatory conduct; 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. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 787- 88; Hostetler, 218 F.3d at 806. Moreover, the alleged discriminatory conduct cannot be considered in a vacuum; rather, an em ployee’s claim must be evaluated in light of the social context in which events occurred. See Oncale, 523 U.S. at 82. Simply put, Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace. See Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81. Although a bright line does not exist separating innocuous from actionable behavior, this court has noted that isolated and minor incidents of questionable conduct generally will not warrant a conclusion of sexual harassment. See Koelsch v. Beltone Elecs. Corp., 46 F.3d 705, 708 (7th Cir. 1995). [T]he occasional vulgar banter, tinged with sexual innuendo of coarse or boorish workers generally does not create a work environment that a reasonable person would find intolerable. Baskerville v. Culligan Int’l Co., 50 F.3d 428, 430 (7th Cir. 1995). A limited number of incidents, however, does not preclude necessarily a trial on a sexual harassment claim. On several occasions, we have reversed the grant of summary judgment for a defendant on a sexual harassment claim despite the fact that the employee alleged relatively few incidents of objectionable conduct. See, e.g., Hostetler, 218 F.3d at 809 (fellow employee not only forcibly kissed plaintiff but later cornered plaintiff and attempted to remove her brassiere); Smith v. Sheahan, 189 F.3d 529, 532 (7th Cir. 1999) (fellow employee physically assaulted plaintiff and had history of verbally abusing female co-workers). In these cases, however, the objectionable conduct, even though isolated, proved so severe as to create potentially a hostile work environment for the employee. We must assess whether Ms. Hilt-Dyson has alleged an actionable claim of a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment. It is clear from the record that Ms. Hilt-Dyson subjectively considered her work environment to be hostile and abusive. In deposition testimony, Ms. Hilt-Dyson stated that she felt violated after Sutherland touched her back on two occasions. She further indicated that she found these back rubbing incidents demeaning and degrading. The City, in fact, concedes that Ms. Hilt-Dyson perceived her work environment as hostile. Despite Ms. Hilt-Dyson’s subjective perceptions concerning ERPS, an objective person would not view her work environment as hostile or abusive. In particular, the back rubbing incidents at issue in this case, although inappropriate behavior in the workplace, do not constitute by themselves actionable harassment under Title VII. Sutherland, her supervisor, rubbed her back on two occasions in March 1999. On each occasion, the back rubbing incident was brief and involved no threats, intimidation or humiliation. Moreover, upon learning that this conduct troubled Ms. Hilt-Dyson, Sutherland told her that he would not touch her again. Indeed, the parties agree that Sutherland never touched nor attempted to touch Ms. Hilt- Dyson after the second back rubbing incident. Given these circumstances, the back rubbing incidents did not constitute actionable sexual harassment under Title