PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T


No. 13-1473


REYA C. BOYER- LI BERTO,

Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant ,

v.

FONTAI NEBLEAU CORPORATI ON, t r adi ng as Cl ar i on Resor t
Font ai nebl eau Hot el ; LEONARD P. BERGER,

Def endant s - Appel l ees.



Appeal f r omt he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of
Mar yl and, at Bal t i mor e. J ames K. Br edar , Di st r i ct J udge.
( 1: 12- cv- 00212- J KB)


Ar gued: J anuar y 29, 2014 Deci ded: May 13, 2014


Bef or e TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge, and NI EMEYER and SHEDD, Ci r cui t
J udges.


Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Ni emeyer wr ot e t he
opi ni on, i n whi ch J udge Shedd j oi ned. J udge Shedd wr ot e a
separ at e concur r i ng opi ni on. Chi ef J udge Tr axl er wr ot e an
opi ni on concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t .


ARGUED: Robi n Ri nggol d Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, PC,
Sal i sbur y, Mar yl and, f or Appel l ant . Har r i et El l en Cooper man,
SAUL EWI NG LLP, Bal t i mor e, Mar yl and, f or Appel l ees. ON BRIEF:
Br et t S. Covi ngt on, SAUL EWI NG LLP, Bal t i mor e, Mar yl and, f or
Appel l ees.


2

NI EMEYER, Ci r cui t J udge:
Reya C. Boyer - Li ber t o, an Af r i can- Amer i can woman, commenced
t hi s act i on agai nst her f or mer empl oyer , t he Font ai nebl eau
Cor por at i on, t r adi ng as Cl ar i on Resor t Font ai nebl eau Hot el , i n
Ocean Ci t y, Mar yl and, and i t s owner , Leonar d Ber ger , f or r aci al
di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on, i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I of t he
Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964 and 42 U. S. C. 1981. She gr ounds her
r aci al di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m on a host i l e wor k envi r onment
al l egedl y cr eat ed by t wo conver sat i ons she had wi t h a cowor ker
about an i nci dent t hat occur r ed on Sept ember 14, 2010. Dur i ng
t he conver sat i ons, whi ch t ook pl ace on t wo consecut i ve days, t he
cowor ker t wi ce cal l ed Li ber t o a por ch monkey. And she gr ounds
her r et al i at i on cl ai m on t he t er mi nat i on of her empl oyment af t er
she compl ai ned about t he st at ement s.
The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he def endant s mot i on f or
summar y j udgment , concl udi ng t hat t he conduct was t oo i sol at ed
t o suppor t ei t her of Li ber t o s cl ai ms.
For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, we af f i r m.

I
Li ber t o began wor ki ng at t he Cl ar i on Resor t Font ai nebl eau
Hot el ( t he Cl ar i on) on August 4, 2010. The Cl ar i on i s a
t ypi cal oceanf r ont hot el , wi t h sever al r est aur ant s, bar s, a
ni ght cl ub, and banquet f aci l i t i es, and i t t ypi cal l y empl oys 75
3

peopl e i n i t s ser vi ce depar t ment . Li ber t o began as a mor ni ng
host ess i n one of t he hot el s r est aur ant s.
Accor di ng t o Ri char d Heubeck, t he Cl ar i on s Food and
Bever age Di r ect or , Li ber t o di dn t seem t o be happy i n [ t he
mor ni ng host ess] posi t i on. He st at ed t hat she had di f f i cul t y
keepi ng pace wi t h t he j ob and t hat i t was not a good f i t f or
her . Because Li ber t o had pr evi ousl y expr essed a pr ef er ence f or
ot her j obs i n t he hot el , she was al l owed t o wor k i n ot her
depar t ment s, engagi ng i n ser vi ng and bar t endi ng, as wel l as
wor ki ng banquet s. Accor di ng t o Ber ger , t he Cl ar i on s owner ,
Li ber t o al so st r uggl ed wi t h t hese ot her j obs. As he st at ed, she
behaved unpr of essi onal l y, cl ashed wi t h ot her empl oyees,
di sr egar ded Cl ar i on pol i cy, and r esponded poor l y t o cr i t i ci sm.
Ber ger sai d t hat because Li ber t o had f ai l ed at f our j obs and
had f ai l ed t he Cl ar i on bar t endi ng t est , he t er mi nat ed her
empl oyment on Sept ember 21, 2010.
Dur i ng her empl oyment , Li ber t o i nt er act ed wi t h Tr udy Cl ubb,
a l ongt i me empl oyee at t he Cl ar i on and a f r i end of Ber ger .
Cl ubb descr i bed her sel f as a r est aur ant manager , r epor t i ng t o
Food and Bever age Di r ect or Heubeck, as wel l as Mar k El man,
anot her super vi sor . Whi l e Cl ubb s exact r ol e at t he Cl ar i on i s
not made cl ear i n t he r ecor d, Cl ubb descr i bed her j ob as
get t i ng t hi ngs goi ng f or t he ear l y par t of t he day, seei ng t hat
t he cr ew i s wel l - equi pped and r eady t o pr esent t hemsel ves t o t he
4

cust omer s, get t i ng t he t abl es r eady, get t i ng t he buf f et . . .
r eady, [ and] over seei ng al l t he i t ems t hat need t o be done.
Cl ubb was not i nvol ved i n t he hi r i ng and di sci pl i ni ng of f el l ow
empl oyees.
Li ber t o t est i f i ed dur i ng her deposi t i on t hat she never
under st ood Cl ubb t o be a super vi sor or manager . Li ber t o sai d
t hat she was t ol d by [ her ] co- wor ker s t hat [ Cl ubb] was j ust Dr .
Ber ger s f r i end and she was j ust t her e t o say hel l o and gr eet
peopl e as a gl or i f i ed host ess. She al so st at ed t hat she was
never t ol d t hat Cl ubb was a manager ; t o t he cont r ar y, she was
t ol d t hat Cl ubb di d not have t he power t o . . . make deci si ons
and di d not have management car ds or keys. Li ber t o st at ed t hat
she her sel f r epor t ed t o Heubeck and t o anot her manager named
J ami e. She acknowl edged t hat she di d l i st en t o Cl ubb, but she
di d so onl y t o t he ext ent t hat she had t o be r espect f ul and
l i st en t o anyone [ she] wor k[ ed] wi t h. Whi l e Cl ubb woul d
occasi onal l y ask Li ber t o or ot her empl oyees t o do somet hi ng,
Li ber t o t est i f i ed t hat i t was not a r egul ar r out i ne . . . f or
[ Cl ubb] t o i nst r uct [ ] ot her empl oyees, and Cl ubb di d not ever
cor r ect t he wor k t hat Li ber t o di d.
When Li ber t o and Cl ubb wer e f i r st i nt r oduced, Cl ubb
compar ed Li ber t o wi t h anot her empl oyee, st at i ng, You l ook l i ke
St acy, but St acy s ni ce, whi ch Li ber t o t ook as of f ensi ve. But
5

t he i nci dent cent r al t o t hi s act i on occur r ed on Sept ember 14,
2010, mor e t han a mont h af t er Li ber t o had been hi r ed.
On t he eveni ng of Sept ember 14, Li ber t o was ser vi ng dr i nks
t o cust omer s, and one cust omer or der ed a Hul a- Hul a, a dr i nk
t hat was par t i cul ar l y t i me- consumi ng t o make. When t he
bar t ender at t he Cl ar i on s pr i mar y bar r ef used t o make t he
dr i nk, Li ber t o went t hr ough t he ki t chen t o or der t he dr i nk f r om
t he Cl ar i on s pub bar . Whi l e passi ng t hr ough t he ki t chen,
Cl ubb cal l ed out t o Li ber t o sever al t i mes, t el l i ng her not t o
use t he ki t chen as a shor t cut . Li ber t o di d not hear Cl ubb s
cal l s. When Cl ubb f i nal l y got Li ber t o s at t ent i on, Cl ubb began
yel l i ng at Li ber t o f or not acknowl edgi ng her when she had t r i ed
t o get Li ber t o s at t ent i on. Li ber t o sai d t hat t he di st ance
bet ween t he t wo was cl ose enough t hat she coul d [ f eel ] Cl ubb s
br eat h and spi t t l e f r om Cl ubb s mout h was hi t t i ng her . Cl ubb
cal l ed Li ber t o deaf and sai d t hat she was goi ng t o make
[ Li ber t o] sor r y. As t he conver sat i on concl uded, Cl ubb cal l ed
Li ber t o a por ch monkey.
When Li ber t o went t o Heubeck s of f i ce t he next day t o
compl ai n about Cl ubb s conduct , Cl ubb came i n and sai d t o
Li ber t o, I need t o speak t o you, l i t t l e gi r l . The t wo t hen
spoke al one out si de t he of f i ce, and Cl ubb scol ded her f or
abandoni ng [ her ] st at i on t he pr evi ous day. As t hi s meet i ng
br oke up, Cl ubb agai n cal l ed Li ber t o a por ch monkey.
6

Li ber t o r epor t ed t he conduct t o Nancy Ber ghauer , t he
Cl ar i on s Human Resour ces Di r ect or , and t he t wo spoke over t he
t el ephone on Sept ember 17, 2010. Ber ghauer made t ypewr i t t en
not es of t he conver sat i on and f or war ded t hem t o Ber ger and
El man. El man met wi t h Li ber t o t o di scuss t he si t uat i on and t o
ensur e t hat Ber ghauer s not es wer e cor r ect . The next day,
Sept ember 18, Heubeck met wi t h Cl ubb, who deni ed Li ber t o s
al l egat i ons. He nonet hel ess i ssued her a wr i t t en war ni ng.
One day pr i or t o Heubeck s meet i ng wi t h Cl ubb, Ber ger and
Heubeck di scussed Li ber t o s per f or mance pr obl ems, as wel l as her
conf l i ct wi t h Cl ubb. Dur i ng t he conver sat i on, Ber ger obser ved
t hat Li ber t o had subst ant i al per f or mance i ssues and f el t t hat
t he Cl ar i on shoul d t er mi nat e her . Over t he next f ew days,
bef or e Ber ger had made a f i nal deci si on on Li ber t o s empl oyment ,
he di scussed Li ber t o s per f or mance wi t h El man and Ber ghauer .
When Ber ger l ooked at Li ber t o s wor k f i l e, he di scover ed t hat
she had f ai l ed t he Cl ar i on s bar t endi ng t est . El man and
Ber ghauer bot h t ol d Ber ger t hat because of [ Li ber t o s]
compl ai nt , [ f i r i ng her ] coul d cr eat e a si t uat i on. Ber ger
r epl i ed t hat t her e s not goi ng t o be any good t i me t o l et her
go. The si t uat i on wi l l be t her e. On Sept ember 21, Ber ger
t er mi nat ed Li ber t o s empl oyment . He asser t ed i n hi s deposi t i on
t hat Li ber t o s al l egat i ons agai nst Cl ubb di d not pl ay any par t
7

i n hi s deci si on. Mor eover , Cl ubb was not i nvol ved i n t he
deci si on, onl y l ear ni ng of i t a week l at er .
Li ber t o f i l ed a char ge of di scr i mi nat i on wi t h t he Equal
Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y Commi ssi on ( EEOC) on Sept ember 23,
2010, al l egi ng di scr i mi nat i on based on her r ace and r et al i at i on
based on her engagement i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, i n vi ol at i on of
Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000e et
seq. The EEOC i ssued Li ber t o a Not i ce of Ri ght t o Sue,
f ol l owi ng whi ch Li ber t o commenced t hi s act i on.
I n her compl ai nt , Li ber t o asser t ed f our cl ai ms f or r el i ef :
t wo count s of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on, i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I
( Count I ) and 42 U. S. C. 1981 ( Count I I I ) , and t wo count s of
r et al i at i on, al so i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I ( Count I I ) and 42
U. S. C. 1981 ( Count I V) .
Fol l owi ng di scover y, t he def endant s f i l ed a mot i on f or
summar y j udgment . I n deci di ng t he mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t
excl uded f r om consi der at i on t he vague answer s t o
i nt er r ogat or i es gi ven by Li ber t o, whi ch wer e not execut ed on
per sonal knowl edge and i ncl uded hear say. The cour t di d,
however , t ake as t r ue t he t est i mony i n Li ber t o s deposi t i on, i n
whi ch she descr i bed t he t wo conver sat i ons i n whi ch Cl ubb cal l ed
her a por ch monkey. The cour t hel d t hat based on t he summar y
j udgment r ecor d so def i ned, t he of f ensi ve conduct was t oo
i sol at ed t o suppor t Li ber t o s cl ai ms f or di scr i mi nat i on and
8

r et al i at i on. Accor di ngl y, by or der dat ed Apr i l 4, 2013, t he
cour t ent er ed j udgment i n f avor of t he def endant s.
Thi s appeal f ol l owed.
I I
Li ber t o cont ends f i r st t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n
excl udi ng her answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es as par t of t he summar y
j udgment r ecor d. The cour t concl uded t hat t he answer s wer e not
onl y vague as t o t i me, pl ace, and i dent i t y of t he hear er but
al so wer e not based on Li ber t o s per sonal knowl edge. Li ber t o
had execut ed t he answer s wi t h t he oat h t hat t hey wer e t r ue t o
t he best of [ her ] knowl edge, i nf or mat i on and bel i ef . Mor eover ,
i n t he t ext of t he answer s t hemsel ves, Li ber t o st at ed t hat t he
i nf or mat i on was not based sol el y upon [ her ] knowl edge . . . but
i ncl ude[ d] t he knowl edge of [ her ] agent s, r epr esent at i ves, and
at t or ney. The answer s i dent i f i ed 14 ot her per sons who had
knowl edge of t he r el evant f act s, as al l eged i n t he compl ai nt .
Li ber t o nonet hel ess ar gues t hat t he l anguage r ef er r i ng t o
ot her per sons i nf or mat i on and her bel i ef was a boi l er pl at e
di scl ai mer t hat i s commonl y used. She expl ai ns, Obvi ousl y,
a l ay pl ai nt i f f cannot be expect ed t o answer compl i cat ed
di scover y r equest s f ul l y and accur at el y wi t hout t he benef i t of
counsel .
As t he Advi sor y Commi t t ee s not es t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l
Pr ocedur e 56 obser ve, t he ver y mi ssi on of t he summar y j udgment
9

pr ocedur e i s t o pi er ce t he pl eadi ngs and t o assess t he pr oof i n
or der t o see whet her t her e i s a genui ne need f or t r i al . Fed.
R. Ci v. P. 56 advi sor y commi t t ee s not e ( 1963 amends. ) ( emphasi s
added) . Because t he Rul e i s a mechani sm t o obvi at e t r i al , t he
f act s f or mi ng t he basi s f or a summar y j udgment must ( 1) be
mat er i al , Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ; ( 2) be undi sput ed, i d. ; and ( 3)
be admi ssi bl e i n evi dence, Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ( 2) , ( 4) . Thus,
a decl ar ant of f act s used t o suppor t or oppose a mot i on f or
summar y j udgment must demonst r at e t hat he or she has per sonal
knowl edge of t he f act s and i s compet ent t o t est i f y t o t hem. See
Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ( 4) ; see al so Szego v. Comm r , No. 91- 2153,
1993 U. S. App. LEXI S 14645, at *4- 5 ( 4t h Ci r . J une 17, 1993)
( per cur i am) ( concl udi ng t hat i nt er r ogat or y answer s wer e not
pr oper l y i n t he summar y j udgment r ecor d because t hey wer e f i l ed
by t he def endant s at t or ney and not based on t he def endant s
per sonal knowl edge) ; Wi l l i ams v. Gr i f f i n, 952 F. 2d 820, 823 ( 4t h
Ci r . 1991) ( not i ng t hat a ver i f i ed compl ai nt coul d be used t o
oppose a mot i on f or summar y j udgment when t he al l egat i ons
cont ai ned t her ei n [ wer e] based on per sonal knowl edge ( emphasi s
added) ) ; Md. Hi ghways Cont r act or s Ass n v. Mar yl and, 933 F. 2d
1246, 1251 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) ( [ H] ear say evi dence, whi ch i s
i nadmi ssi bl e at t r i al , cannot be consi der ed on a mot i on f or
summar y j udgment ) .
10

Whi l e i t i s no doubt t r ue t hat answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es
ar e r out i nel y gi ven on knowl edge, i nf or mat i on and bel i ef , i f a
decl ar ant wi shes t o use such answer s t o suppor t or oppose a
mot i on f or summar y j udgment , she must ei t her st at e t he
i nf or mat i on i n an af f i davi t t hat compl i es wi t h Rul e 56 or
execut e t he answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es on per sonal knowl edge.
I n t hi s case, Li ber t o di d nei t her . Li ber t o suppl i ed her
answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es based not onl y on her own knowl edge,
but al so on i nf or mat i on she r ecei ved f r om ot her s and on her
bel i ef t hat t he i nf or mat i on was t r ue. And i n t hi s case, t he
i nf or mat i on was expl i ci t l y st at ed t o have been obt ai ned f r om her
agent s, r epr esent at i ves, and at t or ney. Such evi dence cer t ai nl y
woul d not be admi ssi bl e at t r i al , as i t woul d amount t o hear say,
specul at i on, or bot h.
We concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n
excl udi ng Li ber t o s answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es f r om
consi der at i on as par t of t he summar y j udgment r ecor d.

I I I
Li ber t o next cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n
r ul i ng as a mat t er of l aw t hat t he undi sput ed f act s i n t he
summar y j udgment r ecor d, vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o
her , di d not demonst r at e a host i l e wor k envi r onment , as
pr ohi bi t ed by Ti t l e VI I and 42 U. S. C. 1981. She ar gues t hat
11

t he use of t he t er m por ch monkey was par t i cul ar l y sever e and
humi l i at i ng and t hat , because t he dur at i on of her empl oyment was
shor t , Cl ubb s t wo uses of t he t er m wer e r el at i vel y f r equent .
Mor eover , she ar gues, because Cl ubb was physi cal l y cl ose t o her
dur i ng t he f i r st conver sat i on when t he t er m was used, i t was
t hr eat eni ng.
The por ch monkey t er m t hat Cl ubb used was i ndeed r aci al l y
der ogat or y and hi ghl y of f ensi ve, and not hi ng we say or hol d
condones i t . Nonet hel ess, we concl ude t hat a cowor ker s use of
t hat t er m t wi ce i n a per i od of t wo days i n di scussi ons about a
si ngl e i nci dent was not , as a mat t er of l aw, so sever e or
per vasi ve as t o change t he t er ms and condi t i ons of Li ber t o s
empl oyment so as t o be l egal l y di scr i mi nat or y.
Ti t l e VI I makes i t unl awf ul f or an empl oyer t o di scr i mi nat e
agai nst an i ndi vi dual wi t h r espect t o her compensat i on, t er ms,
condi t i ons, or pr i vi l eges of empl oyment because of her r ace,
col or , r el i gi on, sex, or nat i onal or i gi n. See 42 U. S. C.
2000e- 2( a) ( 1) . And r equi r i ng an empl oyee t o wor k i n a
di scr i mi nat or i l y host i l e or abusi ve envi r onment vi ol at es t hat
pr ovi si on. Har r i s v. For kl i f t Sys. , I nc. , 510 U. S. 17, 21
( 1993) . A host i l e wor k envi r onment exi st s when t he wor kpl ace
i s per meat ed wi t h di scr i mi nat or y i nt i mi dat i on, r i di cul e, and
i nsul t t hat i s suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve t o al t er t he
condi t i ons of t he vi ct i m s empl oyment and cr eat e an abusi ve
12

wor ki ng envi r onment . I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and
ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I n maki ng a det er mi nat i on whet her an
empl oyer has cr eat ed an abusi ve wor ki ng envi r onment , a cour t i s
r equi r ed t o exami ne al l t he ci r cumst ances[ , i ncl udi ng] t he
f r equency of t he di scr i mi nat or y conduct ; i t s sever i t y; whet her
i t i s physi cal l y t hr eat eni ng or humi l i at i ng, or a mer e of f ensi ve
ut t er ance; and whet her i t unr easonabl y i nt er f er es wi t h an
empl oyee s wor k per f or mance. I d. at 22; see al so Okol i v. Ci t y
of Bal t i mor e, 648 F. 3d 216, 220 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) .
Vi ewi ng t he f act s of t he summar y j udgment r ecor d, we
concl ude t hat Li ber t o has not pr esent ed evi dence such t hat a
r easonabl e j ur or coul d f i nd t hat her wor kpl ace was per meat ed
wi t h di scr i mi nat or y i nt i mi dat i on, r i di cul e, and i nsul t t hat
[ was] suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve t o al t er t he condi t i ons
of [ her ] empl oyment and cr eat e an abusi ve wor ki ng envi r onment .
Har r i s, 510 U. S. at 21 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on
omi t t ed) . Par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant i s t he f act t hat Li ber t o
poi nt s t o onl y t wo conver sat i ons, on consecut i ve days, i n whi ch
Cl ubb cal l ed her a por ch monkey, bot h of whi ch ar ose f r om a
si ngl e i nci dent at t he Cl ar i on. Our cases have made i t cl ear
t hat [ u] nl i ke ot her , mor e di r ect and di scr et e unl awf ul
empl oyment pr act i ces, host i l e wor k envi r onment s gener al l y r esul t
onl y af t er an accumul at i on of di scr et e i nst ances of har assment .
J or dan v. Al t er nat i ve Resour ces Cor p. , 458 F. 3d 332, 339 ( 4t h
13

Ci r . 2006) ; see al so Nat l R. R. Passenger Cor p. v. Mor gan, 536
U. S. 101, 115 ( 2002) ( Host i l e envi r onment cl ai ms ar e di f f er ent
i n ki nd f r omdi scr et e act s. Thei r ver y nat ur e i nvol ves r epeat ed
conduct ) . Whi l e Cl ubb s st at ement s t o Li ber t o wer e r aci al l y
der ogat or y and hi ghl y of f ensi ve, as we have not ed, t hey wer e
si ngul ar and i sol at ed, and Li ber t o has not poi nt ed t o any ot her
speci f i c i ndi cat or s i n t he r ecor d t hat Cl ubb, or any ot her
empl oyee, made r aci st or host i l e st at ement s t o her .
Li ber t o r el i es on t hr ee cases t hat , she ar gues, suppor t her
cl ai m of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on t hr ough a host i l e wor k
envi r onment : Tawwaab v. Vi r gi ni a Li nen Ser vs. , I nc. , 729 F.
Supp. 2d 757 ( D. Md. 2010) ; Spr i ggs v. Di amond Aut o Gl ass, 242
F. 3d 179 ( 4t h Ci r . 2001) ; and Ayi ssi - Et oh v. Fanni e Mae, 712
F. 3d 572 ( D. C. Ci r . 2013) . None of t hese cases, however ,
advances her ar gument .
I n Tawwaab, an Af r i can- Amer i can empl oyee at a l i nen and
l aundr y ser vi ce was consi st ent l y har assed by hi s super vi sor ,
Mi l l er , r egar di ng hi s r ace. As t he cour t obser ved:
Car t er al l eges t hat Mi l l er const ant l y used r aci al
sl ur s and pr of ane i nsul t s i n hi s pr esence i n r ef er ence
t o t he Af r i canAmer i cans he super vi sed t hat i ncl uded
t he t er ms dumb, st upi d, mot her f ucker s, bl ack
mot her f ucker s, bast ar ds, bl ack bast ar ds, and
bl ack Fr esh Pr i nces of Bel Ai r . Car t er al l eges t hat
Mi l l er di d not use t hi s t ype of i nvect i ve when
addr essi ng whi t e empl oyees. He speci f i cal l y
i dent i f i es an i nci dent wher ei n Mi l l er sai d of Vi r gi l
Wi ngat e, anot her Af r i canAmer i can r out e sal es
r epr esent at i ve: I can t st and t hat bl ack
14

mot her f ucker . I m goi ng t o ki ck t hat bl ack bast ar d s
ass and dr ag hi s mot her f ucki ng ass acr oss t he f ucki ng
par ki ng l ot , bl ack bast ar d. I can t st and t hat
mot her f ucker .

* * *

Mi l l er al so al l egedl y made r aci al j okes i n Car t er s
pr esence about t r adi t i onal Af r i canAmer i can hai r st yl es
and et hni c- soundi ng names. I n addi t i on, Mi l l er kept
a st at ue on hi s desk of what Pl ai nt i f f s asser t i s an
Af r i canAmer i can gol f caddy wi t h t he appear ance of a
monkey, and t hat Mi l l er woul d del i ber at el y pl ace t hi s
st at ue i n f r ont of Car t er and ot her Af r i canAmer i can
empl oyees when he woul d meet wi t h t hem, as i f t o say,
Thi s i s what I t hi nk of you. You ar e monkeys t o me.
I d. at 766. I n denyi ng t he def endant s summar y j udgment mot i on,
t he cour t not ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f i dent i f i ed appr oxi mat el y t en
act i onabl e i nci dent s of har assment t hat t ook pl ace bet ween 2005
and 2007 and t hat sever al of t he i nci dent s wer e par t i cul ar l y
of f ensi ve, i nvol vi ng at l east some ki nd of physi cal t hr eat .
I d. at 778. I n cont r ast , Li ber t o onl y r ef er s t o t wo
conver sat i ons, about a si ngl e i nci dent , occur r i ng on consecut i ve
days, dur i ng whi ch Cl ubb t wi ce used a r aci al epi t het .
Si mi l ar l y, i n Spr i ggs, t he of f ensi ve st at ement s at i ssue,
whi ch wer e made by t he pl ai nt i f f s super vi sor , i ncl uded near l y
ever y r aci st i nsul t one can i magi ne, i ncl udi ng ni gger , bl ack
bi t ch, monkey, and dumb monkey, ext endi ng r epeat edl y over
t he cour se of t wo st i nt s of empl oyment spanni ng t hr ee year s.
242 F. 3d at 182. I n vacat i ng summar y j udgment ent er ed i n f avor
of t he def endant s, t he cour t emphasi zed t he f r equency of t he
15

comment s. I d. at 185. Agai n, t hat ci r cumst ance i s not
pr esent ed i n t hi s case.
Fi nal l y, i n Ayi ssi - Et oh, t he pl ai nt i f f - - an Af r i can-
Amer i can seni or f i nanci al model er - - asked a whi t e super vi sor
why he had not r ecei ved a r ai se i n conj unct i on wi t h a r ecent
pr omot i on. Ayi ssi - Et oh, 712 F. 3d at 574- 75. I n r esponse, he
was t ol d, For a young bl ack man smar t l i ke you, we ar e happy t o
have your exper t i se; I t hi nk I m al r eady payi ng you a l ot of
money. I d. at 575. Sever al mont hs l at er , dur i ng a di scussi on
wi t h a mor e di r ect super vi sor about t he pl ai nt i f f s wor k
r esponsi bi l i t i es, t he super vi sor yel l ed at hi m, Get out of my
of f i ce ni gger . I d. The pl ai nt i f f was f or ced t o cont i nue
wor ki ng wi t h t he second super vi sor , event ual l y causi ng t he
pl ai nt i f f t o have an anxi et y di sor der and mi ss wor k. The
pl ai nt i f f br ought , i nt er al i a, a host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m
and a cl ai mt hat he was deni ed a r ai se because of hi s r ace, bot h
under 42 U. S. C. 1981. The D. C. Ci r cui t concl uded t hat t he
def endant was not ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment on ei t her cl ai m.
I d. at 576- 77. Those ci r cumst ances, however , ar e subst ant i al l y
di st i ngui shabl e f r omt hose i n t hi s case. Fi r st , as t he cour t i n
Ayi ssi - Et oh not ed, t he host i l e wor k envi r onment was not
pr eci pi t at ed by a si ngl e event , but r at her by t wo i ndependent
st at ement s havi ng ongoi ng appl i cabi l i t y, made by t wo di f f er ent
super vi sor s of t he pl ai nt i f f , ul t i mat el y l eadi ng t o heal t h
16

pr obl ems and di r ect l y causi ng t he pl ai nt i f f t o mi ss wor k. I d.
Addi t i onal l y, t he r aci st comment s wer e made dur i ng conver sat i ons
di r ect l y about t he pl ai nt i f f s pay and wor k assi gnment s - - cl ear
si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he st at ement s al t er [ ed] t he condi t i ons of
t he vi ct i m s empl oyment . Har r i s, 510 U. S. at 521. I n
cont r ast , t hi s case pr esent s st at ement s made by a cowor ker , t hat
di d not r el at e t o Li ber t o s t er ms of empl oyment and di d not have
l ong- t er mongoi ng consequences.
Li ber t o has not poi nt ed t o any Four t h Ci r cui t case, nor
coul d she, f i ndi ng t he pr esence of a host i l e wor k envi r onment
based on a si ngl e i nci dent . Compar e J or dan, 458 F. 3d at 340
( addr essi ng a si ngl e r aci st st at ement di r ect ed i n r esponse t o a
t el evi si on news r epor t and made i n t he pr esence of pl ai nt i f f and
not i ng t hat i t was a f ar cr y f r om al l egi ng an envi r onment of
cr ude and r aci st condi t i ons so sever e or per vasi ve t hat t hey
al t er ed t he condi t i ons of [ pl ai nt i f f s] empl oyment ) , wi t h
Ander son v. G. D. C. , I nc. , 281 F. 3d 452, 459 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002)
( denyi ng summar y j udgment wher e pl ai nt i f f was subj ect ed, on a
dai l y basi s, t o ver bal assaul t s of t he most vul gar and
humi l i at i ng sor t ) ; Conner v. Schr ader - Br i dgepor t I nt l , I nc. ,
227 F. 3d 179, 196 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) ( not i ng f r equency and
r egul ar i t y of t he unwel come conduct ) ; Ami r mokr i v. Bal t i mor e
Gas & El ec. Co. , 60 F. 3d 1126, 1131 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ( [ C] o-
wor ker s abused [ pl ai nt i f f ] al most dai l y, cal l i ng hi m names l i ke
17

t he l ocal t er r or i st , a camel j ockey and t he Emi r of
Wal dor f ) .
Li ber t o s host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m under 42 U. S. C.
1981 i s gover ned by t he same pr i nci pl es appl i cabl e t o her
host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m under Ti t l e VI I . See Spr i ggs,
242 F. 3d at 184. And because we concl ude t hat Li ber t o has not
demonst r at ed a host i l e wor k envi r onment under Ti t l e VI I , we
l i kewi se concl ude t hat she has not done so under 1981.
*

I V
Fi nal l y, Li ber t o cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n
di smi ssi ng her r et al i at i on cl ai ms under Ti t l e VI I and 42 U. S. C.
1981. She asser t s t hat her empl oyment was t er mi nat ed because
she compl ai ned about Cl ubb s por ch monkey st at ement s. I n

*
Def endant s al so ar gue t hat Cl ubb was not Li ber t o s
super vi sor and t her ef or e t hat her comment s wer e not i mput abl e
t o def endant s f or pur poses of a vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I or
1981. See Vance v. Bal l St at e Uni v. , 133 S. Ct . 2434 ( 2013) .
They not e t hat Cl ubb di d not have any di r ect hi r i ng and f i r i ng
power over Li ber t o, poi nt i ng t o Cl ubb s st at ement t hat she di d
not make [ hi r i ng] deci si ons. Those [ wer e] made by human
r esour ces and t he manager , t he ot her manager . Mor eover ,
Li ber t o conceded t hat she di d not consi der Cl ubb her super vi sor .
And when Li ber t o s empl oyer l ear ned of Cl ubb s of f ensi ve
comment s, i t di d admoni sh Cl ubb, and no f ur t her si mi l ar i nci dent
occur r ed. See Vance, 133 S. Ct . at 2441 ( not i ng t hat when a
cowor ker s conduct i s t he basi s of a host i l e wor k envi r onment
cl ai m, empl oyer s l i abi l i t y i s based on negl i gence wi t h r espect
t o t he of f ensi ve behavi or ) . But because we have concl uded t hat
Cl ubb s st at ement s t o Li ber t o di d not cr eat e a sever e or
per vasi ve host i l e wor k envi r onment , we need not r each whet her
Cl ubb was i n f act a super vi sor , t hus i mput i ng l i abi l i t y t o t he
Cl ar i on, or whet her t he Cl ar i on was negl i gent i n how i t
r esponded t o Li ber t o s compl ai nt .
18

ent er i ng summar y j udgment on t hi s cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t
concl uded t hat she l acked an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat
she was act ual l y bei ng subj ect ed t o unl awf ul har assment .
Li ber t o nonet hel ess ar gues t hat r at her t han assessi ng whet her
she had an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef of har assment , t he
di st r i ct cour t , by r equi r i ng t hat t he conduct be suf f i ci ent l y
sever e or per vasi ve, r equi r ed her t o pr ove act ual har assment .
I n ar gui ng t hat her bel i ef was an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e one,
she r el i es on t he of f ensi veness of t he por ch monkey epi t het .
To demonst r at e r et al i at i on, a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat she
was t er mi nat ed because she engaged i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y - -
i . e. , because she r espond[ ed] t o an empl oyment pr act i ce t hat
[ she] r easonabl y bel i eve[ d] [ was] unl awf ul . J or dan, 458 F. 3d
at 338 ( emphasi s added) . Li ber t o cont ends t hat she had such an
obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef based on Cl ubb s t wo st at ement s
made i n r el at i on t o t he i nci dent on Sept ember 14, 2010.
But j ust as her cl ai m as t o an act ual host i l e wor k
envi r onment f ai l ed as a mat t er of l aw, her cl ai mt hat she had an
obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat she was compl ai ni ng about a
host i l e wor k envi r onment f ar es no bet t er i n t he ci r cumst ances of
t hi s case. The conver sat i ons f or mi ng t he basi s f or Li ber t o s
bel i ef wer e i sol at ed t o one cowor ker about one i nci dent over t wo
days. And Li ber t o concedes t hat Cl ubb had not cal l ed her by
r aci al epi t het s bef or e or af t er t he conver sat i ons at i ssue her e.
19

Mor eover , Li ber t o s r el at i onshi ps wi t h her super vi sor s and her
ot her cowor ker s wer e f r ee f r omsuch epi t het s.
I n addi t i on, when t hese conver sat i ons occur r ed, Li ber t o
t hought t hat she was si mpl y bei ng r edr essed by a cowor ker , not
her super vi sor . When Li ber t o was asked whet her she knew t hat
Cl ubb was t he r est aur ant manager , Li ber t o emphat i cal l y t est i f i ed
t hat she di d not . I n r esponse t o t he f ol l ow- up quest i on, You
never knew t hr oughout your ent i r e empl oyment wi t h t he Cl ar i on
t hat she was a manager ? she r esponded:
Never . I r epor t ed t o J ami e, and J ami e, as a mat t er of
f act , t ol d me not t o go t o [ Cl ubb] because [ Cl ubb] di d
not have t he power t o do voi ds or make deci si ons. I
had t o r epor t t o J ami e or Ri char d. And at t he t i me
[ Cl ubb] di d not hol d any management car ds or keys as
J ami e di d.
Li ber t o expl ai ned t hat she woul d onl y l i st en t o Cl ubb as she
woul d t o any ot her per son t hat she wor ked wi t h. I n t hese
ci r cumst ances, Li ber t o s under st andi ng of Cl ubb s r ol e l essens
t he r i sk t hat Cl ubb s st at ement s al one caused Li ber t o t o
r easonabl y bel i eve t hat Cl ar i on had al t er ed t he t er ms and
condi t i ons of her empl oyment . See Bur l i ngt on I ndus. , I nc. v.
El l er t h, 524 U. S. 742, 763 ( not i ng t hat a super vi sor s power
and aut hor i t y i nvest s hi s or her har assi ng conduct wi t h a
par t i cul ar t hr eat eni ng char act er ) .
Fi nal l y, t he anal ysi s of t he host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m
t hat we conduct ed ear l i er i n t hi s opi ni on t ends t o conf i r m t he
20

absence of an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat a vi ol at i on had
occur r ed. I n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, i f no obj ect i vel y
r easonabl e j ur or coul d have f ound t he pr esence of a host i l e wor k
envi r onment , as we t oday hol d, i t st ands t o r eason t hat Li ber t o
al so coul d not have had an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat a
host i l e wor k envi r onment exi st ed.
I n shor t , we concl ude t hat Li ber t o coul d not have had an
obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat , i n compl ai ni ng t o management
about t he t wo r el at ed conver sat i ons, she was compl ai ni ng about
conduct t hat was unl awf ul ei t her under Ti t l e VI I or 1981.
Li ber t o poi nt s out t hat under Ti t l e VI I , she need not wai t
unt i l her wor k envi r onment i s act ual l y host i l e and t hr eat eni ng
bef or e her opposi t i on i s pr ot ect ed. She i s cor r ect i n not i ng
t hat wher e conduct i s l i kel y t o r i pen i nt o a host i l e wor k
envi r onment , t he empl oyee s opposi t i on may be pr ot ect ed bef or e
t he host i l e envi r onment has f ul l y t aken f or m. See J or dan, 458
F. 3d at 340; E. E. O. C. v. Navy Fed. Cr edi t Uni on, 424 F. 3d 397
( 4t h Ci r . 2005) . But t hi s case does not pr esent any i ndi cat or s
t hat t he si t uat i on at t he Cl ar i on woul d have r i pened i nt o a
host i l e wor k envi r onment . Ther e was no ser i es of event s t hat
wer e set i n mot i on by Cl ubb s st at ement s, unl i ke cases wher e
we have deni ed summar y j udgment on a r et al i at i on cl ai m because
t he conduct compl ai ned of was l i kel y t o l ead t o a Ti t l e VI I
vi ol at i on. See, e. g. , Navy Fed. , 424 F. 3d at 406- 08; see al so
21

J or dan, 458 F. 3d at 341 ( [ W] e cannot si mpl y assume, wi t hout
mor e, t hat t he opposed conduct wi l l cont i nue or wi l l be r epeat ed
unabat ed) . I ndeed, af t er t he i nci dent , Cl ar i on management
war ned Cl ubb, and Cl ubb and Li ber t o t her eaf t er had no f ur t her
cont act . Mor eover , Li ber t o has poi nt ed t o no ot her speci f i c
i ndi cat or s i n t he r ecor d t o evi nce t hat wor kpl ace r aci sm was
af oot bef or e t hen.
J ust as i n J or dan, we concl ude her e t hat whi l e i n t he
abst r act , cont i nued r epet i t i on of r aci al comment s of t he ki nd
[ Cl ubb] made mi ght have l ed t o a host i l e wor k envi r onment , no
al l egat i on i n t he [ r ecor d] suggest s t hat a pl an was i n mot i on t o
cr eat e such an envi r onment , l et al one t hat such an envi r onment
was even l i kel y t o occur . J or dan, 458 F. 3d at 340; see al so
Far agher v. Ci t y of Boca Rat on, 524 U. S. 775, 788 ( 1998) ( A
r ecur r i ng poi nt i n [ Supr eme Cour t opi ni ons on host i l e wor k
envi r onment s] i s t hat . . . of f hand comment s[ ] and i sol at ed
i nci dent s ( unl ess ext r emel y ser i ous) wi l l not amount t o
di scr i mi nat or y changes i n t he t er ms and condi t i ons of
empl oyment ( emphasi s added) ) ; Gr eene v. A. Dui e Pyl e, I nc. ,
170 F. App x 853, 856 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) ( per cur i am) ( concl udi ng
t hat empl oyer was ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment on r et al i at i on
cl ai m because pl ai nt i f f , when he made hi s compl ai nt , di d not
have an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat hi s empl oyer
mai nt ai ned a host i l e wor kpl ace wher e sexual magazi nes and
22

i nappr opr i at e j okes wer e of t en post ed) ; But l er v. Al a. Dep t of
Tr ansp. , 536 F. 3d 1209, 1213- 14 ( 11t h Ci r . 2008) ( hol di ng t hat
cowor ker s use of t he wor d ni gger t wi ce i n negat i ve r ef er ence
t o a t hi r d par t y was not enough t o gi ve pl ai nt i f f an obj ect i vel y
r easonabl e bel i ef t hat a r aci al l y host i l e wor k envi r onment
exi st ed so as t o suppor t a r et al i at i on cl ai m) .
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r m t he j udgment of t he
di st r i ct cour t .
AFFI RMED

23

SHEDD, Ci r cui t J udge, concur r i ng:
I agr ee wi t h J udge Ni emeyer and Chi ef J udge Tr axl er t hat ,
under our pr ecedent , as a mat t er of l aw t he f act s of t hi s case
do not demonst r at e a host i l e wor k envi r onment . Based on t hi s
Cour t s deci si on i n J or dan v. Al t er nat i ve Resour ces Cor p. , 458
F. 3d 332 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) , I agr ee wi t h J udge Ni emeyer t hat
summar y j udgment shoul d al so be af f i r med on t he r et al i at i on
cl ai m.


24

TRAXLER, Chi ef J udge, concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t :
I agr ee t hat under exi st i ng pr ecedent , Li ber t o has not
demonst r at ed a host i l e envi r onment under Ti t l e VI I or 1981.
However , because I bel i eve t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n gr ant i ng
summar y j udgment on her r et al i at i on cl ai ms, I di ssent i n par t .
I .
Vi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Li ber t o,
as we must i n r evi ewi ng an or der gr ant i ng summar y j udgment
agai nst her , see Bl and v. Rober t s, 730 F. 3d 368, 372 ( 4t h Ci r .
2013) , t he r ecor d r eveal s t he f ol l owi ng. Cl ar i on i s a hot el
cont ai ni ng guest r ooms, a conf er ence cent er , sever al r est aur ant s
and bar s, a banquet f aci l i t y, and a ni ght cl ub. Li ber t o, who i s
Af r i can- Amer i can, began wor ki ng f or Cl ar i on i n ear l y August
2010. She t r ai ned i n each of t he hot el s f ood and bever age
posi t i ons, i ncl udi ng mor ni ng r est aur ant host ess, cockt ai l
wai t r ess, r est aur ant ser ver , bar t ender , and banquet - f aci l i t y
ser ver .
On t he ni ght of Sept ember 14, Li ber t o was wor ki ng t he
cockt ai l shi f t when one of her cust omer s or der ed a dr i nk t hat
was f ai r l y compl i cat ed and t i me- consumi ng t o make. When t he
bar t ender on dut y at t he mai n bar r ef used t o make t he dr i nk, t he
bar t ender at t he pub bar agr eed t o do so. Af t er pi cki ng up
t he dr i nk f r om t he pub bar , Li ber t o passed t hr ough t he ki t chen
and i nt o t he di ni ng r oom i n or der t o br i ng t he dr i nk t o her
25

cust omer . Whi l e Li ber t o was st i l l i n t he di ni ng r oom, Tr udy
Cl ubb, a weekend manager f or t he hot el , appr oached her and began
scr eami ng l oudl y at her . J . A. 239. Cl ubb, who i s Caucasi an,
was a l ong- t i me empl oyee of t he hot el and f r i end of Dr . Leonar d
Ber ger , t he hot el s owner .
*
Appar ent l y, Cl ubb had at t empt ed t o
get Li ber t o s at t ent i on as Li ber t o was passi ng t hr ough t he
ki t chen, but Li ber t o had not hear d her . Cl ubb yel l ed t o
Li ber t o, Hey, you. Gi r l t hat can t hear , and br i skl y came up
t o her . J . A. 238. Li ber t o t ur ned away f r omCl ubb and l ooked at
a comput er scr een, whi ch f ur t her agi t at ed Cl ubb. As Cl ubb
yel l ed at Li ber t o, she st ood so cl ose t o her t hat Li ber t o coul d
f eel her br eat h and Cl ubb s spi t t l e f l ew i nt o Li ber t o s f ace.
J . A. 241.
As Li ber t o at t empt ed t o pr oceed i nt o t he di ni ng r oom t o
ser ve a cust omer , Cl ubb cont i nued yel l i ng at her , t el l i ng her
not t o wal k away. Cl ubb t ol d Li ber t o t hat she was not al l owed
t o go t hr ough t he ki t chen, and she cal l ed Li ber t o deaf and
t ol d her t hat Cl ubb was goi ng t o get her and make [ her ]
sor r y. J . A. 250, 252- 53. Then she cal l ed Li ber t o ei t her a
damn . . . por ch monkey or dang[ ] por ch monkey and exi t ed
t he di ni ng r oom. J . A. 258. Por ch monkey i s a r aci al sl ur

*
When Li ber t o was f i r st i nt r oduced t o Cl ubb, Cl ubb t ol d
her , [ Y] ou l ook l i ke St acy, but St acy s ni ce. J . A. 212.
26

used agai nst Af r i can- Amer i cans. See Whi t e v. BFI Wast e Ser vs. ,
L. L. C. , 375 F. 3d 288, 297 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) .
The next day, Li ber t o r ecei ved si mi l ar t r eat ment f r om
Cl ubb. Bef or e her di nner shi f t , as Li ber t o was i n t he hot el s
management of f i ce speaki ng t o Cl ar i on s Food and Bever age
Di r ect or Ri char d Heubeck about what had happened t he ni ght
bef or e, Cl ubb came i nt o t he of f i ce, cut Li ber t o of f , and sai d,
I need t o speak t o you, l i t t l e gi r l . J . A. 263. Li ber t o t ol d
Cl ubb she was speaki ng t o Heubeck, but Cl ubb r epl i ed t hat she
was mor e i mpor t ant , and Li ber t o f ol l owed her out of t he
of f i ce. J . A. 264. As t hey sat at a t abl e t oget her , Cl ubb began
t o quest i on Li ber t o agai n about why she had gone t hr ough t he
ki t chen and whet her she had asked anyone i f she coul d do so.
Cl ubb agai n became agi t at ed and agai n began yel l i ng at Li ber t o
wi t h ot her s i n t he r oom. As t he t wo wer e get t i ng up, Cl ubb
t hr eat ened t hat she was goi ng t o go t o Dr . Ber ger and was
goi ng t o make [ Li ber t o] sor r y. J . A. 266- 67. She t hen, i n a
l oud voi ce, agai n cal l ed Li ber t o a por ch monkey. J . A. 267.
Two days l at er , on Sept ember 17, 2010, Li ber t o compl ai ned
t o Nancy Ber ghauser , who was Cl ar i on s di r ect or of human
r esour ces, t hat on Sept ember 14, Cl ubb, when ber at i ng her f or
cut t i ng t hr ough t he ki t chen and f or not r espondi ng t o Cl ubb s
at t empt s t o get Li ber t o s at t ent i on, had cal l ed Li ber t o a por ch
monkey[ ] and t ol d Li ber t o t hat Cl ubb was goi ng t o speak wi t h
27

Dr . Ber ger and make [ Li ber t o] sor r y. J . A. 316. Lat er t he
same day, Ber ghauser f or war ded her t yped not es f r om her
conver sat i on wi t h Li ber t o t o Dr . Ber ger and Mar k El man, who was
t he hot el s gener al manager . Upon r ecei vi ng i nf or mat i on about
Li ber t o s al l egat i ons, Dr . Ber ger asked Heubeck about Li ber t o.
At t he end of t hei r conver sat i on, Dr . Ber ger deci ded t o
t er mi nat e Li ber t o, and Li ber t o was not i f i ed on Sept ember 21 t hat
she was bei ng t er mi nat ed.
Li ber t o subsequent l y f i l ed a compl ai nt wi t h t he EEOC
al l egi ng di scr i mi nat i on due t o r aci al har assment and r et al i at i on
i n t he f or m of her di schar ge f or engagi ng i n pr ot ect ed
act i vi t y. The EEOC t hen i ssued a r i ght - t o- sue l et t er , and
Li ber t o br ought t hi s act i on asser t i ng cl ai ms of r aci al
di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on under Ti t l e VI I and 42 U. S. C.
1981. Fol l owi ng di scover y, t he def endant s f i l ed a mot i on f or
summar y j udgment t hat t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed.
I I .
A pl ai nt i f f may demonst r at e she was subj ect ed t o a r aci al l y
host i l e wor k envi r onment under Ti t l e VI I by pr ovi ng she
exper i enced ( 1) unwel come conduct , ( 2) t hat was based upon t he
her r ace, ( 3) t hat was suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve t o
al t er [ her ] condi t i ons of empl oyment and t o cr eat e an abusi ve
wor k envi r onment and ( 4) t hat i s i mput abl e t o t he empl oyer .
Okol i v. Ci t y of Bal t i mor e, 648 F. 3d 216, 220 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) .
28

The same t est appl i es t o cl ai ms br ought under 42 U. S. C. 1981.
See Spr i ggs v. Di amond Aut o Gl ass, 242 F. 3d 179, 184 ( 4t h Ci r .
2001) .
I agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat , under our exi st i ng
pr ecedent , par t i cul ar l y J or dan v. Al t er nat i ve Resour ces Cor p. ,
458 F. 3d 332 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) , t he conduct Li ber t o compl ai ned of
as a mat t er of l aw di d not r i se t o t he l evel of act i onabl e
har assment . However , I par t ways wi t h t he maj or i t y on t he
quest i on of whet her t hat det er mi nat i on necessar i l y r esol ves t he
r et al i at i on cl ai m as wel l . See Ant e, at 20 ( I n t he
ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, i f no obj ect i vel y r easonabl e j ur or
coul d have f ound t he pr esence of a host i l e wor k envi r onment , as
we hol d t oday, i t st ands t o r eason t hat Li ber t o al so coul d not
have had an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat a host i l e wor k
envi r onment exi st ed. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) .
The r el evant pr ovi si on of Ti t l e VI I , pr ot ect i ng agai nst
r et al i at i on, r eads:
I t shal l be an unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce f or an
empl oyer t o di scr i mi nat e agai nst any of hi s empl oyees
. . . because he has opposed any pr act i ce made an
unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce by t hi s t i t l e.
42 U. S. C. 2000e- 3( a) . The pl ai n meani ng of t he st at ut or y
l anguage pr ovi des pr ot ect i on of an empl oyee s opposi t i on
act i vi t y when t he empl oyee r esponds t o an act ual unl awf ul
empl oyment pr act i ce. J or dan, 458 F. 3d at 338. Never t hel ess,
29

we have al so hel d t hat opposi t i on act i vi t y i s pr ot ect ed when i t
r esponds t o an empl oyment pr act i ce t hat t he empl oyee r easonabl y
bel i eves i s unl awf ul . I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Thus, even
i f t he pr act i ce opposed does not act ual l y vi ol at e Ti t l e VI I ,
opposi ng t he pr act i ce can be pr ot ect ed conduct i f t he empl oyee
has an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e bel i ef t hat a vi ol at i on i s
act ual l y occur r i ng based on ci r cumst ances t hat t he empl oyee
obser ves and r easonabl y bel i eves. I d. at 341.
I n det er mi ni ng whet her t hat st andar d i s met her e, I bel i eve
i t i s i mpor t ant t o r ecogni ze t hat even [ a] si ngl e, suf f i ci ent l y
sever e i nci dent . . . may suf f i ce t o cr eat e a host i l e wor k
envi r onment . Ayi ssi - Et oh v. Fanni e Mae, 712 F. 3d 572, 579
( D. C. Ci r . 2013) ( Kavanaugh, J . , concur r i ng) ( concl udi ng t hat
super vi sor s st at ement t o Af r i can- Amer i can empl oyee, Get out of
my of f i ce ni gger , was suf f i ci ent by i t sel f t o const i t ut e an
act i onabl e host i l e wor k envi r onment ) . We have expl ai ned bef or e
t hat [ f ] ar mor e t han a mer e of f ensi ve ut t er ance, t he wor d
ni gger i s pur e anat hema t o Af r i can- Amer i cans. Spr i ggs, 242
F. 3d at 185. And Li ber t o may wel l have hel d t he same bel i ef
about t he t er m por ch monkey. See i d. ( not i ng t hat t he
const ant use of t he wor d monkey t o descr i be Af r i can Amer i cans
was si mi l ar l y odi ous t o t he use of t he wor d ni gger ) .
We, of cour se, hel d i n J or dan t hat an of f ensi ve r aci al
r emar k made by a cowor ker di d not amount t o act i onabl e
30

har assment , but , i n so doi ng, we emphasi zed t hat t he compl ai ned-
of i nci dent was onl y a si ngul ar and i sol at ed excl amat i on [ t hat
was] not . . . r epeat ed . . . bef or e or af t er and t hat i t was
di r ect ed at cr i mi nal s on t el evi si on who had been capt ur ed, not
at t he pl ai nt i f f or any f el l ow empl oyee. J or dan, 458 F. 3d at
340. Her e, i n cont r ast , Cl ubb cal l ed Li ber t o her sel f a por ch
monkey and di d so i n t he cont ext of angr i l y t hr eat eni ng t o speak
wi t h her f r i end, t he hot el owner , t o get Li ber t o f i r ed. Al so i n
cont r ast t o J or dan, Cl ubb s use of t he epi t het was not a si ngl e,
i sol at ed occur r ence, as she cal l ed Li ber t o t he ver y same name i n
t he ver y same t hr eat eni ng cont ext t he ver y next day.
Par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t hese si gni f i cant di f f er ences, I
bel i eve t hat Li ber t o coul d have r easonabl y bel i eved t hat Cl ubb s
conduct was act i onabl e.
I shar e i n t he sent i ment J udge Ki ng expr essed so wel l i n
hi s di ssent i n J or dan t hat our ver y nar r ow i nt er pr et at i on of
what const i t ut es a r easonabl e bel i ef i n t hi s cont ext has
pl ace[ d] empl oyees who exper i ence r aci al l y di scr i mi nat or y
conduct i n a cl assi c Cat ch- 22 si t uat i on. I d. at 349 ( Ki ng,
J . , di ssent i ng) . They can ei t her r epor t t he of f endi ng conduct
t o t hei r empl oyer at t hei r per i l , i d. at 355 ( Ki ng, J . ,
di ssent i ng) , as t he Supr eme Cour t has essent i al l y r equi r ed t hem
t o do i n or der t o pr eser ve t hei r r i ght s, see Far agher v. Ci t y of
Boca Rat on, 524 U. S. 775, 807 ( 1998) ; Bur l i ngt on I ndus. , I nc. v.
31

El l er t h, 524 U. S. 742, 764- 65 ( 1998) , or t hey can r emai n qui et
and wor k i n a r aci al l y host i l e and degr adi ng wor k envi r onment ,
wi t h no l egal r ecour se beyond r esi gnat i on, J or dan, 458 F. 3d at
355 ( Ki ng, J . , di ssent i ng) . Li ke J udge Ki ng, I cannot accept
t hat an empl oyee i n ci r cumst ances l i ke t hese can be f or ced t o
choose bet ween her j ob and her di gni t y. See i d. at 356. For
t hese r easons, I r espect f ul l y di ssent f r om t he af f i r mance of t he
summar y j udgment agai nst Li ber t o on her r et al i at i on cl ai ms.