Court Opinion

ID: 9835194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:13:26.632146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:59.599938
License: Public Domain

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON,
Circuit Judge, concurring:
At oral argument Ortiz-Diaz’s counsel posed a disturbing hypothetical. She claimed that, if we accept the defendant’s argument, we would affirm dismissal of a suit challenging an employer’s affixing a “whites-only” sign to a water cooler because “not a penny is lost by any worker *494... no one lost supervisory duties ... [and it is] not in any way related to the actual workplace.” Oral Arg. Recording 1:11-2:04. Although such action could, in my view, constitute a “discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment ... sufficiently severe or pervasive” to sustain a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, Harris v. Forklift Sys, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993), it has no relevance to our “materially adverse action” precedent.