Opinion ID: 2967284
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severity of the Unwelcome Conduct

Text: The second Harris factor, the severity of the unwelcome conduct, taken as a whole, is also firmly established on this evidentiary record. For example: (a) Ms. Conner was denied the necessary training to perform her job. See supra § II.B.1. She was thereafter inequitably assigned to perform more difficult tasks. See supra § II.B.3; see also Amirmokri , 60 F.3d at 1131 (supervisor tried to embarrass plaintiff by giving him impossible tasks and by stating in front of his coworkers that plaintiff did not know what he was doing). She nonetheless performed skilled tasks, sometimes assisting men who did not have those necessary skills, and she did so at a lower rate of pay. See supra § II.B.8. Also, she was selectively disciplined for her absences. See supra § II.B.2. When she sought remedy for these disparities, her concerns were repeatedly ignored by the responsible authorities. See supra § II.B.7; see also, e.g., Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 573 (8th Cir. 1997) (managers' failure to respond to complaints added to hostile environment). (b) Ms. Conner was required to expose her uterine blood to Mr. Schaefer, and to do so within view of her co- workers. See supra § II.B.6. This unnecessary and deeply invasive mandate is certainly severe by any definition. See, e.g., Forts v. Ward, 621 F.2d 1210, 1214 n.5 (2d Cir. 1980) (noting that privacy justified the district court's order that prevented male prison guards from viewing female inmates during the early morning, when one may find her night clothes and bedding visibly soiled from an unexpected menstrual flow [which she] wish[ed] to clean up), cited with 25 approval in Lee v. Downs, 641 F.2d 1117, 1119-20 (4th Cir. 1981). (c) Schaefer publicly asked Ms. Conner if she wason the rag, and in this manner, he dismissed the legitimacy of her frustrations by personal gender-based remarks. See supra § II.B.5. His remarks are unlike the generalized and plaintiff-invited references to gender stereotypes in Hartsell. See Hartsell, 123 F.3d at 772 (office comments that females would cry like a baby, and suggestions that women be a mini van driving mommy, or like a good wife were not severe in a context where the plaintiff herself referenced masturbation and used profanity to refer to her supervisor). Schaefer's references to Ms. Conner's menstruation amplified the severity of his requirement that Ms. Conner actually expose her gynecological blood to him. (d) Schaefer publicly asked her didn't she get any last night?, another personalized offensive utterance. See supra § II.B.5; see also, e.g. , Spicer, 66 F.3d at 707 (abusive environment established by two days of a few co-workers' remarks such as This is nipple check day, and Which one is bigger?). (e) The regular mocking of Ms. Conner while she mopped the floor is also of consequence for our view of the totality of the circumstances. See supra§ II.B.4; see also Amirmokri, 60 F.3d at 1131 (supervisor and coworkers abused Iranian plaintiff almost daily by calling him a camel jockey, the local terrorist, and the Emir of Waldorf). The more serious incidents enumerated here were complemented by numerous additional occurrences that, in isolation, may have seemed less problematic, but which actually served to exacerbate the severity of the situation. Reviewed and considered cumulatively, the unwelcome conduct here was clearly of sufficient severity to support the jury's verdict against SBI. 26