Li Li Manatt v. Bank of America, Na
2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6613, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 8318, 339 F.3d 792 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Racially charged conduct in the workplace that consists of isolated, offensive incidents and offhand remarks spread over a multi-year period is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an actionable hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Facts:
- Li Li Manatt, an American citizen of Chinese descent, worked for Bank of America in its Portland trade finance department from July 1995 to March 1998.
- During her employment, Manatt's supervisor, Bill Gilmore, smiled when a coworker made a racist comment about a "China man" and their eyes.
- Gilmore also told Manatt directly, "I’ve had the worst kind of trouble with your countrymen."
- Manatt overheard coworkers Barbara Green and Vincent Correia saying "China man" and "rickshaw," who then saw Manatt and pulled their eyes back with their fingers to mock the appearance of Asians.
- Manatt heard the phrase "China man" used in jokes told near her cubicle on several occasions.
- In March 1998, coworker Barbara Green, mocking Manatt's mispronunciation of "Lima," yelled across the office, "China woman, China woman, China woman, get your butt over here."
- Immediately following this, Green and Correia laughed at Manatt's mispronunciation, stating several times, "That’s because she’s a China woman."
- After Manatt complained to Gilmore about the "Lima incident," Gilmore held a staff meeting to discuss sensitivity, and the offensive comments and jokes stopped.
Procedural Posture:
- Li Li Manatt filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) in April 1999.
- Manatt filed a lawsuit against Bank of America in the Multnomah County Circuit Court, a state trial court, on December 21, 1999.
- Bank of America removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, a federal trial court.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bank of America on all claims.
- Manatt, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Bank of America as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a series of offensive, racially-charged comments and actions, including two particularly egregious incidents, occurring over a two-and-a-half-year period constitute conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an actionable hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981?
Opinions:
Majority - Tallman, J.
No, the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an actionable hostile work environment. To be actionable, workplace harassment must be more than merely episodic; it must be so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of the victim's employment. While the conduct of Manatt’s coworkers was offensive and inappropriate, it fell into the category of 'simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents' that do not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment. The court identified the 'Lima incident' and the eye-pulling gesture as particularly troubling, but noted these two specific incidents, coupled with other offhand remarks over a two-and-a-half-year span, did not reach the high threshold required by law. The court contrasted these facts with cases involving physical abuse or a relentless pattern of daily harassment, concluding that Manatt's experience, while regrettable, did not meet the legal standard for a hostile work environment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to establish a hostile work environment claim. It demonstrates that courts will distinguish between conduct that is merely offensive and conduct that is legally actionable, emphasizing that frequency and severity are critical factors. The case serves as a cautionary example for plaintiffs, showing that even overtly racist and humiliating incidents may not be sufficient to survive summary judgment if they are not pervasive or part of a consistent pattern of abuse. The ruling solidifies the principle that anti-discrimination statutes are not a 'general civility code' for the workplace.
