Opinion ID: 216604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ketterer's Hostile Work Environment Claim

Text: Ketterer appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment on his hostile work environment claim. Ketterer, who is Caucasian, argues that he is a member of a protected class due to his association with African-Americans and Hispanics. He claims harassment based upon that association was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to affect his employment. The district court found that Ketterer did not establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment because he did not belong to a protected group, and did not allege[ ] harassment based on his race that was sufficiently pervasive to affect his employment. Arrieta, 2008 WL 5220569 at . Specifically, Ketterer failed to claim an association with a protected group sufficient to bring him under the coverage of Title VII's substantive antidiscrimination provision[.] Id. This court has not ruled on the extent of association necessary between a member of one race and a member of another race against which the employer discriminates in order for the member of the former race to have an actionable hostile work environment claim. [1] We have, however, examined this question in the context of other provisions of Title VII. For example, we have held that Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment premised on an interracial relationship. Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 156 F.3d 581, 589 (5th Cir.1998), vacated in part on other grounds in Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 182 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.1999) (en banc). Recently, we specified that the relationship between the unprotected employee and protected employee had to be personal. Floyd v. Amite Cnty. Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 244, 249-50 (5th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). Additionally, the discrimination must be predicated on animus against the employee because of his association with persons of another race as opposed to animus against members of the other race with whom the employee associates. Id. at 250. Ketterer has not established that he had a personal relationship with members of a protected class. The only evidence offered before the district court on this claim is that Ketterer associated with minority employees. Because Ketterer did not adequately present this argument before the district court, any effort to do so now is too late. Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 339 (5th Cir.2005). The district court properly dismissed Ketterer's claim because he failed to establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment.