Opinion ID: 609816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Hostile Work Environment Claim

Text: 7 The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Purrington's hostile work environment claim as untimely. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. We apply the same legal standard used by the district court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and examine the record to determine if any genuine issue of material fact was in dispute; if not, we determine if the substantive law was correctly applied. Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990). 8 In Utah, a plaintiff must file a Title VII discrimination charge within 240 days of the alleged discriminatory act. 1 Purrington filed her charge on July 28, 1989. Thus, her claim is timely only with respect to discriminatory acts which occurred after November 30, 1988. The district court held that because Adix neither touched nor made comments to Purrington once Adix left the WRC on May 31, 1988, no hostile work environment existed after that date. Therefore, for Purrington's untimely claim of sexual harassment to survive, she must either prove that a continuing violation existed or establish equitable tolling.
9 [A] hostile environment claim usually involves a continuing violation. Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 476 (5th Cir.1989). To invoke the continuing violation exception to the Title VII charge-filing deadlines, Purrington must show either (1) a series of related acts taken against a single individual, one or more of which falls within the limitations period, or (2) the maintenance of a company-wide policy of discrimination both before and during the limitations period. Bruno v. Western Elec. Co., 829 F.2d 957, 961 (10th Cir.1987). 10 (1) Series of Related Acts 11 To prove a series of related acts, Purrington must show that the acts rise to the level of a dogged pattern of discrimination as distinguished from isolated and sporadic outbreaks. Id. The evidence must support[ ] a determination that the 'alleged discriminatory acts are related closely enough to constitute a continuing violation.'  Id. (citing Berry v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971, 981 (5th Cir.1983)). Courts have not formulated a clear standard for determining when alleged discriminatory acts are related closely enough to constitute a continuing violation and when they are merely discrete, isolated, and completed acts which must be regarded as individual violations. Berry, 715 F.2d at 981. The Berry court found three inquiries relevant, though not exhaustive: (1) whether the alleged acts involve the same type of violation, (2) whether the acts are recurring versus isolated; and perhaps most important, (3) whether the acts have the degree of permanence which should alert the employee to the duty to assert her rights. Id. Permanency depends on what the plaintiff knew or should have known at the time of the violation. In noting that acts of harassment which create a hostile environment generally have a lesser degree of permanence, the Fifth Circuit provided as an example that, [i]f the person harassing a plaintiff leaves his job, the harassment ends.... Waltman, 875 F.2d at 476. 12 While Purrington asserted that she saw Adix engaged in inappropriate behavior on several occasions following Adix' departure from the WRC, only two incidents were identified with sufficient specificity and thereby referenced by the district court: 13 In the spring of 1989, while at the School of Social Work Building on WRC business, plaintiff witnessed Adix place her arm around a woman in a manner similar to the way Adix touched women at the WRC. 14 In the summer of 1989, while serving as a facilitator during a workshop at the Graduate School of Social Work, Adix hugged a former WRC staff member in a way the former staff member believed was sexual in nature. Plaintiff did not witness this event; rather, she was told about it by the former staff member. 15