Court Opinion

ID: 9492797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:50:43.229553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:29.943264
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Chief Judge,
dissenting.
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993), the Supreme Court acknowledged that determining whether a work environment is objectively hostile or abusive is not a “mathematically precise test.” Because this imprecise test requires careful consideration of the aggregate effect of the offensive factual incidents endured by Jenny Burnett, rather than simply a tallying of the occurrences, I must respectfully dissent.
In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986), the Court defined hostile work environment sexual harassment: “For sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.” In Harris, the Court provided a nonexclusive list of factors for identifying a hostile work environment: “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably é interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367.
The majority fails to acknowledge the impact of our Court’s recent decision in Williams v. General Motors Corporation, 187 F.3d 553 (6th Cir.1999). In Williams, we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged multiple acts creating a hostile work environment: foul language, sexual comments directed at plaintiff, at least one incident of physical contact, perceived inequities of treatment, and pranks or annoying conduct' by coworkers. See id. at 559, 562. We held the district court erred in its dismissal of these incidents as “ ‘infrequent, not severe, not threatening or humiliating, but merely offensive.’ ” Id. at 563. We found the district court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances and thereby “robbed the incidents of their cumulative effect.” Id. at 561. We noted that a Title VII violation may exist even when no single episode of sexual harassment would be sufficient to create a hostile environment. See id. at 564. We stressed that the totality of the circumstances approach is the “most basic tenet” of the hostile work environment cause of action. Id. at 564. More specifically, we found that incidents with an “element of physical invasion” were “not merely crude, offensive, and humiliating.” Id.
Under Meritor Savings Bank, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, and Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII if the alleged conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive. It need not be both. Burnett does not base her claim on the pervasive nature of Phillips’s conduct, by alleging that Phillips’s conduct was ongoing or continual. Rather, she asks this Court to examine whether the aggregate severity of Phillips’s conduct was sufficient to create a hostile work environment. The district court and the majority have failed to examine Burnett’s evidence of a hostile work environment under the totality of the circumstances approach. Both have broken out the individual incidents and determined that none alone was adequately “severe” to create a hostile work environment. The majority creates a scorecard, finding one act to be severe and two to be innocuous. While I do not fully agree with their conclusions, I object more strongly to their method of computation. The majority concludes that these numbers are insufficient to create an issue of material fact as to whether the conduct was sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment. In doing so, the majority fails to *986examine the aggregate effect of the incidents. See Williams, 187 F.3d at 564.
The district court found that Phillips’s act of reaching inside Burnett’s blouse and placing a cigarette pack under her bra strap was merely inappropriate. The majority properly acknowledges this error and concedes that this physical contact was a battery. The severity of Phillips’s act is enhanced because this was unwelcome physical contact of a very personal form. Reaching inside someone else’s clothing, especially someone’s undergarments, cannot be considered merely inappropriate. As we noted in Williams, 182 F.3d at 563, this “element of physical invasion” exceeds conduct that is “merely crude, offensive, and humiliating.” I cannot overlook the severity of this physical contact.
Furthermore, the district court labeled both of Phillips’s comments to Burnett as “mere offensive utterance[s].” Phillips’s statement, “Since you have lost your cherry, here’s one to replace the one you lost,” was more than merely offensive. Unlike most of the comments found to be of inadequate severity in Black and Abeita, this comment was made directly to Burnett. As well, the comment was an explicit reference to a private body part, her hymen. I cannot agree with the majority’s dismissal of this comment as innocuous. Such a blatantly sexual comment addressed directly to Burnett by her supervisor in the presence of other employees exceeded the excusable realm of crude and adolescent behavior.
Although the number of incidents alleged by Burnett-she presents three incidents of inappropriate conduct-is less than those alleged in Black, Abeita, or Williams, this should not be determinative. When viewed under the totality of the circumstances approach, the severe nature of these incidents distinguishes the present case. At a minimum, these facts create a genuine of issue of material fact as to whether the work environment was objectively hostile. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.