Court Opinion

ID: 9484422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:53:11.862957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:14.353998
License: Public Domain

BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the district court on the extrinsic evidence issue. However, I dissent from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s granting of a directed verdict for the defendant on the claim of national origin harassment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I would affirm the district court’s findings that national origin harassment alone is not actionable under section 1983, that plaintiff did not allege a hostile work environment, and that, in any case, plaintiff Boutros did not present sufficient evidence to make out a claim of a hostile work environment.
This Court is to review the grant of a directed verdict using the same standard that the district court applied in deciding whether to grant a directed verdict. O’Neal v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., 860 F.2d 1341, 1347 (6th Cir.1988). In a case based on federal question jurisdiction,
“ ‘[T]he standard to be applied in determining the propriety of a grant or denial of a directed verdict is whether the evidence is such, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or considering the weight of the evidence, that there is substantial evidence from which the jury could find in favor of the party against whom the motion is made. Only when it is clear that reasonable people could come to but one conclusion from the evidence should a court grant a motion for directed verdict.’ ”
Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271, 274 (6th Cir.1989) (citation omitted). I believe that a jury could reach but one conclusion here.
I agree with the majority that a jury could find, based on the evidence presented at trial, that Boutros was verbally harassed by his supervisors and by co-workers on the basis of his national origin. I also agree with the majority that Trautvetter v. Quick, 916 F.2d 1140 (7th Cir.1990) — a Seventh Circuit decision whose holding has not been accepted by this Circuit — is not applicable in this ease involving national origin harassment. Unlike the verbal sexual abuse in Trautvetter that the court attributed to the plaintiffs personal conduct or characteristics and not her sex, here the verbal abuse — consisting of such comments as “camel jockey”, “camel rider”, “rug peddler”, “rich Arab”, and killer of Jews — clearly was directed at Boutros’s national origin and not at his personal characteristics. I also agree that the analysis for a claim of national origin harassment under section 1983 is the same as that used for Title VII harassment claims. Risinger v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 883 F.2d 475, 483 (6th Cir.1989).
However, I dissent from the majority’s holding that national origin harassment alone can be actionable under section 1983. The majority states that plaintiffs “claim of national origin harassment in the employment context is actionable under 42 U.S.C. *206§ 1983;” that the trial court “erred in concluding that national origin harassment is not actionable under § 1983, and again in finding that Boutros had made no allegation of a hostile work environment ...and that “[c]ases of unwanted, sexual advances or harassment motivated by gender alone are indisputably actionable under § 1983.” These statements indicate that the majority believes that national origin harassment without more is actionable under section 1983 as an equal protection violation. Nonetheless, although relying both on that misconception and the misconception that Boutros raised a hostile work environment claim in his pleadings and in the trial court, the majority correctly focuses on whether the harassment in this case created a hostile work environment. This was the correct focus because, as the district court found, verbal harassment based on national origin is actionable only if such verbal harassment rises to the level of a hostile work environment.
Although there is little case law discussing section 1983 or Title VII harassment claims not alleging a hostile work environment, the case law indicates that claims based only on allegations of ethnic slurs are not enough. Harassment does not rise to an actionable level unless it is “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’” Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2405, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (citation omitted). As the Supreme Court noted in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), “ ‘harassment [which is] sufficiently severe or pervasive “to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment,” ’ [Vinson, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2406], is actionable, under Title VII because it ‘affects a “term, condition, or privilege” of employment.’ ” Id. 491 U.S. at 180, 109 S.Ct. at 2374 (quoting Vinson, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2406).
At least as to racial harassment claims in this Circuit, this “pervasive” misconduct standard translates into two requirements: “ ‘repeated slurs and management’s tolerance and condonation of the situation.’ ” Nelms v. Montgomery Cty. Combined Health Dist., 915 F.2d 1572 (6th Cir.1990) (unpublished per curiam) (quoting Davis v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 858 F.2d 345 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1110, 109 S.Ct. 3166, 104 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1989)). In Davis v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 858 F.2d 345 (6th Cir.1988), we discussed this two-part test by holding that 1) to meet the “repeated slurs” factor, the plaintiff must show that the harassment “constituted an unreasonably abusive or offensive work-related environment or adversely affected the reasonable employee’s ability to perform the tasks,” and 2) to meet the “tolerance” requirement, the plaintiff must establish that the employer “knew or should have known of the alleged conduct- and failed to take prompt remedial action.” Id. at 349.
In Risinger, 883 F.2d at 485, another panel of the Court, sitting a year after the Davis decision, applied a slightly different test to racial harassment claims. Id. The Risinger panel indicated that Davis was a departure from Patterson v. McLean Credit Union and Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1041, 107 S.Ct.1983, 95 L.Ed.2d 823 (1987), in that the test laid out in Rabidue should apply to both racial and sexual harassment claims. As the majority in this case noted, the Risinger court set out the five requirements under Rabidue for making out a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim in this Circuit:
[T]o prevail in a Title VII offensive work environment sexual harassment action, [the claimant] must assert and prove that: (1) the employee was a member of a protected class; (2) the employee was subjected to unwelcomed sexual harassment in the form of ... verbal ... conduct of a sexual nature; (3) the harassment complained of was based upon sex; (4) the charged sexual harassment had the effect of unreasonably interfering with the plaintiffs work performance and creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment that affected seriously the psychological well-being of the plaintiff; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability.
*207Rabidue, 805 F.2d at 619-20. See Nelms, 915 F.2d 1572 (6th Cir.1990) (unpublished per curiam) (acknowledging the differing tests and following the Davis test).
Because this Court has held that the principles governing sexual harassment claims apply equally to harassment claims based on race, religion or national origin, Risinger, 883 F.2d at 485 (citing EEOC Compliance Manual), these Rabidue requirements apply to Boutros’s national origin harassment claim. Both the Davis and Rabidue/Risinger tests dictate that verbal abuse and slurs alone are not enough to make out an actionable claim, but that this harassment must be so pervasive as to create a hostile work environment. See also Valdez v. Mercy Hosp., 961 F.2d 1401, 1402-03 (8th Cir.1992) (ethnic jokes did not rise to level of severity to demonstrate hostile work environment); Daniels v. Essex Group, Inc., 937 F.2d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1991) (Title VII claim made out if “quantity and frequency” of racial and ethnic slurs make harassment “pervasive”); Daemi v. Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc., 931 F.2d 1379, 1385 (10th Cir.1991) (ethnic slurs did not unreasonably interfere with work performance or affect employment opportunities); Erebia v. Chrysler Plastics Prods. Corp., 772 F.2d 1250, 1254-57 (6th Cir.1985) (ethnic harassment must be pervasive so as to alter employment conditions), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1015, 106 S.Ct. 1197, 89 L.Ed.2d 311 (1986).
I disagree with the majority that Boutros has made out a claim of hostile work environment. First, the majority states that “[pjlaintiff contends that the effect of that alleged national origin harassment was the creation of an offensive hostile work environment which was deeply wounding to his psychological well-being and made him fearful for his performance, for which he was finally discharged.” However, although the majority may contend this, Boutros in fact did not. Boutros did not plead a hostile work environment claim in his complaint. Contrary to the majority’s view, I do not believe that plaintiffs complaint sufficiently states a claim of a hostile work environment merely by alleging that defendants’ actions violated his equal protection rights “[b]y harassing and insulting Plaintiff during the course of his employment” or “[b]y using his national origin in a discriminatory manner, i.e., calling him insulting and derogatory racial names designed only to belittle and degrade the Plaintiff.” Although the complaint uses the word “harass! ]”> this is not sufficient to state a claim for pervasive verbal abuse amounting to a hostile work environment. Second, in his initial appellate brief, Boutros does not contend that he has made out a claim of hostile work environment but only argues that a section 1983 claim based on national origin verbal abuse is actionable. Only in his reply brief does Boutros raise the issue of a hostile work environment and claim that he presented sufficient evidence on this issue to withstand a directed verdict. However, an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered on appeal. Pachla v. Saunders System, Inc., 899 F.2d 496, 502 (6th Cir.1990). Because plaintiff has neither pled a claim of hostile work environment nor timely raised it on appeal, I believe this Court may not address the issue. Taft Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir.1991) (issue not raised in district court cannot be addressed on appeal).
Even if Boutros had stated a hostile work environment claim, I would hold that the district court did not err in granting a directed verdict for defendants because there was not sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that the abuse to which plaintiff was subjected was sufficiently pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. Plaintiff testified that on several occasions he was called names relating to his national origin by Director of Transportation Jack Winegarter and by NTS General Manager Jim Rosa, and that Rosa once stated that he agreed with Winegarter’s ethnic slurs. Boutros explained his reaction to these slurs:
I felt very, very bad. I mean, if someone kept calling you names and you don’t need the job here and you get to the point— sometimes I thought my performance was going to really fail but thank God, it did not.
He also stated that Winegarter’s “camel jockey” reference was derogatory and that he “took it very hard.” He noted that other *208drivers made comments about his national origin, but he gave no specifics except that he told them not to say those things. And, Boutros testified that Winegarter’s successor, Ronald Dodsworth, called plaintiff a “camel jockey”, a “heeb”, and an “rich Arab” to a third person and that plaintiff overheard these comments outside the room, and that Dodsworth made slurs directly to him on other occasions.
However, none of this verbal harassment rises to the level of creating a hostile work environment. Under the Rabidue standard, plaintiffs evidence wholly failed to show that the harassment “had the effect of unreasonably interfering with the plaintiffs work performance and creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment that affected seriously the psychological well-being of the plaintiff.” Rabidue, 805 F.2d at 619-20 (emphasis added). Both unreasonable interference with work performance and serious effect on psychological well-being are necessary under Rabidue to make out a hostile work environment claim. Except for Boutros’s comments that the slurs made him feel “very, very bad” and that he took the slurs “hard”, he presented no evidence that the slurs unreasonably interfered with his work performance or that they created an environment so hostile that it seriously affected his psychological well-being. In fact, Boutros stated that although he feared his performance was going to fail, “thank God, it did not.” The majority relies on this statement as evidence that his work performance was affected by the slurs, although not actually hindered. However, the test is not whether Boutros feared his work would suffer, or even whether his work was affected, but whether in fact the harassment “had the effect of unreasonably interfering” with his work performance. The majority does not even address the necessity that plaintiff present evidence that the slurs had a serious effect on his psychological well-being. But clearly, plaintiffs statements about feeling bad do not amount to serious psychological effect. And, even under the more-lenient Davis test, Boutros did not present evidence sufficient to make out the “repeated slurs” factor by showing that the harassment “constituted an unreasonably abusive or offensive work-related environment or adversely affected the reasonable employee’s ability to perform the tasks.” Davis, 858 F.2d at 349.
I would find that Boutros has not attempted to state a hostile work environment claim, but even if he had, no jury could find, based upon the evidence presented, that the verbal harassment created a hostile work environment actionable under section 1983. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s grant of a directed verdict.