ÿWPC%" ´s[™JE+ki8-w´ #f.<ï!ÉöŸÇ$pŒ²ín$Ê“ŸW ÔZóÃ#ÕÔÚ@õ~| ’ h‹hÖ*öµæDÀê#ÇéJ|YÀ`ú%/Ž<#›ÀŽ~~´OŒæï0‰‹¾]÷ghF( ìbvU„ø¾ã?™"&în©zˆþ—¸‘Ï–f@Ay‘gm½#_‹‰¤gF÷Bo9õÆ+_ÁåÁ&\+»´ólÓLQëKÜ,KíJ¡u J¡åêïâãŸ!±©²»šÆâ³äåþ`õ„;g‰>¤e¾jüSù±”M·d_ç:ŸŒÕ&J²]9™ƒÁÐ̓O¾U"‹˜hŪš™¯A.änS’S  •’H G§%àË ‡ÑAi~ºR‘sö ©„3Î_€(6‘àâ +¡7DÊh¾5ï‘gtŽ€‚Å5X¸ýÕ§†ï2/b‡ ¨Î]“­s'\#,É”açÛ©®ï/ìxœ²‘+7Ém4×½4Œö@Àr44ÒÔ¤uHÌý„¬­œ#Ñ^Ãyï-#ÄýDG»è×j“cÜl.s‚tFÔß(‡2ÆÔ-,ýP³¼Bà ƒŽzeƒ¨*GpKÀ ƒü\‹#Áš %[ 0Da 0(¥ ¥ 0ÆÍ “ nT™ Ní ï ^ ÷ w4* m,ECfEaGN[>]]b›››/£€ÒžRëð"Û ýýýýýýýý B!!UF%!%!U@k!k!UF«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«!«! 0%4ñ!˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0-X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡(d:2•û$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€)sò)X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóH«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ 0™P2s ÉL=16Xy File3|x*ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT- ù- %Ý ƒ•û$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€)bj)X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€is€an€odd€configuration€for€the€claim€that€Ortiz,€on€aÐ ° Ðsingle€occasion,€sexually€harassed€the€plaintiff.€€We€assume€thatÐ †Ö Ðthe€plaintiff€attempts€to€force€the€harassment€claim€into€that€moldÐ \¬ Ðin€an€effort€to€elude€the€limitations€question€under€chapter€151B.€Ð 2‚ ÐòòSeeóó€òòinfraóó€Part€II(B). vÝ ƒ•û$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€)bj)X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€claim€is,€of€course,€limited€to€Title€VII.€€Insofar€asÐ ° Ðit€might€have€been€brought€under€chapter€151B,€it€is€time„barred.€Ð †Ö ÐòòSeeóó€òòsupraóó€Part€II(B). ”Ý ƒ•û$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€)bj)X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€emphasize€that€we€refer€here€only€to€òòSkidmoreóó€deference,Ð ° Ðnot€òòChevronóó€deference.€€òòCompareóó€òòSkidmoreóó€v.€òòSwift€&€Co.óó,€323€U.S.Ð †Ö Ð134,€140€(1944),€òòwithóó€òòChevron€U.S.A.€Inc.óó€v.€òòNatural€Res.€Def.Ð \¬ ÐCouncil,€Inc.óó,€467€U.S.€837,€843„44€(1984).€€After€all,€statementsÐ 2‚ Ðin€the€EEOC's€Compliance€Manual€are€neither€adjudicatory€nor€theÐ X Ðproduct€of€notice„and„comment€rulemaking.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð Þ. ÐòòCity€of€New€Yorkóó,€359€F.3d€83,€93€(2d€Cir.€2004);€òòcf.óó€òòNavarroóó€v.Ð ´  ÐòòÔ_ÔPfizerÔ_Ô€Corp.óó,€261€F.3d€90,€99€(1st€Cir.€2001).ò òó ó€€They€are,Ð Š Ú Ðtherefore,€entitled€to€deference€only€to€the€extent€that€they€haveÐ ` ° Ðthe€power€to€persuade.€€òòSeeóó€òòChristensenóó€v.€òòHarris€Countyóó,€529€U.S.Ð 6 †  Ð576,€587€(2000). áÝ ƒ•û$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€)bj)X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Second€Circuit€takes€a€somewhat€broader€view.€€That€courtÐ ° Ðconsiders€a€supervisor€to€be€someone€who€has€actual€authority€toÐ †Ö Ðdirect€an€employee's€work„related€tasks€in€a€way€that€couldÐ \¬ Ðincrease€her€workload€or€saddle€her€with€less€desirable€tasks.€Ð 2‚ ÐòòMackóó€v.€òòOtis€Elev.€Co.óó,€326€F.3d€116,€126„27€(2d€Cir.€2003).€€EvenÐ X Ðwere€we€to€adopt€this€less€demanding€test,€the€nominal€supervisorsÐ Þ. Ðhere€would€not€qualify€as€supervisors€in€fact. Ý ƒ•û$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€)bj)X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€be€sure,€the€mere€fact€that€coworkers€collect€money€onÐ ° Ðbehalf€of€a€person€accused€of€discrimination€is€not€actionable.€Ð †Ö ÐSuch€behavior€falls€outside€the€realm€of€conduct€undertaken€out€ofÐ \¬ Ðanimus€toward€a€complainant€and€should€not€be€considered€forÐ 2‚ Ðpurposes€of€determining€whether€there€was€a€hostile€workÐ X Ðenvironment.€€The€fact€that€coworkers€rubbed€the€plaintiff's€noseÐ Þ. Ðin€the€collection€is€a€horse€of€a€different€hue.€€If€the€incidentÐ ´  Ðoccurred€as€the€plaintiff€suggests€(an€assumption€that€we€mustÐ Š Ú Ðindulge€at€the€summary€judgment€stage),€it€was€a€clear€indicationÐ ` ° Ðof€open€hostility€directed€at€the€plaintiff€and€would€haveÐ 6 †  Ðdeleteriously€affected€her€working€conditions. Ý ƒ•û$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€)bj)X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWere€that€statement€offered€as€evidence€of€the€declarant'sÐ ° Ðcontribution€to€the€hostile€work€environment,€it€would€likely€beÐ †Ö Ðadmissible.€€In€that€event,€its€effect€on€the€plaintiff€would€beÐ \¬ Ðthe€same€regardless€of€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€€òòSeeóó€òòMotaóó,Ð 2‚ Ð261€F.3d€at€526€n.46.€€Here,€however,€the€plaintiff's€affidavitÐ X Ðtakes€the€air€out€of€any€suggestion€that€the€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô's€statementÐ Þ. Ðwas€itself€a€product€of€retaliatory€animus. dÿ.Courier New Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman <4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular&c$"ð"ðà0 àÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡-°§Ê°X-XÔÔ‡+°gr°°-°§ÊÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†-°§Ê°°+°grä#ÔÔ#†-XbjX°-°§ÊÅ#ÔÐ ° ÐÔ‡-„ÜË„X-XbjÔÔ‡+„Æ_„„-„ÜËÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†-„ÜË„„+„Æ_›#ÔÔ#†-XbjX„-„ÜË|#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€04„1719Ð K › ÐÌà@ðð"ìàCHRISTI€Ô_ÔNOVIELLOÔ_Ô,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ ìàPlaintiff,€Appellant,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@hh#ìàCITY€OF€BOSTON,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@<< ìàDefendant,€Appellee.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà@èèìà[Hon.€Douglas€P.€Ô_ÔWoodlockÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ !q ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð Í ÐÌSelya,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð yÉ! ÐÌand€Cyr,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó.Ð %!u# ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Ð"` AßÐ Ñ"!% ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòRobert€S.€Ô_ÔMantellÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòKevin€G.€Powersóó€and€òòRodgers,Ð ¶#' ÐPowers€&€Schwartz€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellant.Ð Œ$Ü( Ðà  àòòKaren€A.€Glasgowóó,€Assistant€Corporation€Counsel,€with€whomÐ b%² ) ÐòòÔ_ÔMeritaÔ_Ô€A.€Hopkinsóó,€Corporation€Counsel,€was€on€brief,€for€appellee.Ð 8&ˆ!* ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ º( $-º( $ ‹‹ÐÓÓÐ SI)n$. À¿â@38398„„‰À¿â@‰‹‹SÐÌFebruary€16,€2005Ð ô)D%0 ÐÐ RHCÊ*&1" À¿â@38398 À¿â@ ‹‹RÐÐ()n$2  (ÐÙ* !ÙÌÐ  ¦,ö'3? ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ€ÑÑ8€-bj-XXdÖdÈ8ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€discrimination€case,€broughtÐ ° Ðunder€both€federal€and€state€law,€involves€charges€of€sexual€andÐ xÈ Ðretaliatory€harassment.€€Faced€with€a€plethora€of€issues,€theÐ $t Ðdistrict€court€entered€summary€judgment€for€the€defendant.€€OnÐ Ð  Ðappeal,€we€must€sort€out€which€of€the€plaintiff's€claims€areÐ | Ì Ðtimely;€address€whether€her€timeous€claims€for€retaliatoryÐ ( x  Ðharassment,€cast€in€the€form€of€a€hostile€work€environment,€areÐ Ô$  Ðlegally€cognizable€and€sufficiently€supported;€grapple€with€her€oneÐ €Ð  Ðtimely€claim€of€sexual€harassment,€also€cast€in€the€form€of€aÐ ,|  Ðhostile€work€environment;€and€discuss€various€aspects€of€the€caseÐ Ø( Ðrelating€to€employer€liability.€€After€careful€consideration€ofÐ „Ô Ðthese€variegated€issues,€we€conclude€(i)€that€the€district€courtÐ 0€ Ðerred€in€granting€summary€judgment€on€the€retaliation€claims,€asÐ Ü, Ðthose€claims€are€timely,€cognizable,€and€supported€by€sufficientÐ ˆØ Ðevidence,€but€(ii)€that€the€district€court€correctly€enteredÐ 4„ Ðsummary€judgment€on€the€sexual€harassment€claims:€€despite€theÐ à0 Ðattempt€to€recast€them€in€a€hostile€work€environment€format,€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðstate„law€claim€is€time„barred€and€its€federal€analogue€runs€afoulÐ 8!ˆ" Ðof€an€inexpugnable€affirmative€defense€ð"ð€the€employer's€swift,Ð ä"4$ Ðeffective,€and€non„negligent€response€to€the€underlying€incident.€Ð $à& ÐAccordingly,€we€vacate€in€part,€affirm€in€part,€and€remand€forÐ <&Œ!( Ðfurther€proceedings.Ð è'8#* ÐÌÐ @+&. Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ° Ðà ` àBecause€this€appeal€follows€a€grant€of€summary€judgment,Ð xÈ Ðwe€rehearse€the€facts€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmovingÐ $t Ðparty€(here,€the€plaintiff),€consistent€with€record€support.€Ð Ð  ÐòòGarsideóó€v.€òòOsco€Drug,€Inc.óó,€895€F.2d€46,€48€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€ThatÐ | Ì Ðapproach€entails,€among€other€things,€giving€the€nonmovant€theÐ ( x  Ðbenefit€of€all€reasonable€inferences€that€those€facts€will€bear.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòId.óóÐ €Ð  Ðà@¤¤#ìàò òA.€€òòThe€Factsóó.ó óˆÐ ,|  Ðà ` àWhile€on€the€job€on€September€11,€1999,€plaintiff„Ð ôD Ðappellant€Christi€Noviello,€a€parking€enforcement€officer€for€theÐ  ð Ðcity€of€Boston,€was€riding€in€a€city„owned€van€with€her€immediateÐ Lœ Ðsuperior,€Jos€Ortiz.€€After€first€announcing€his€intentions,€OrtizÐ øH Ðforcibly€unhooked€the€plaintiff's€brassire,€ripped€it€from€herÐ ¤ô Ðbody,€hung€it€on€the€van's€outside€mirror,€and€bellowed€a€crudeÐ P  Ðsexual€remark€to€a€fellow€employee€on€the€street.€€Over€the€nextÐ üL Ðfew€days,€the€plaintiff€reported€the€incident€to€a€number€ofÐ ¨ø  Ðmunicipal€hierarchs.€€They€promptly€investigated€the€matter,Ð T!¤" Ðsuspended€Ortiz€a€week€after€the€incident,€and€ultimately€cashieredÐ #P$ Ðhim.Ð ¬$ü& Ðà ` àSoon€after€Ortiz's€banishment,€coworkers€began€to€subjectÐ X&¨!( Ðthe€plaintiff€to€sundry€indignities,€or,€in€the€words€of€theÐ (T#* Ðemployees€themselves,€to€"bust[]€her€chops."€€The€record€containsÐ °)%, Ðevidence€of€the€following€incidents€(the€plaintiff€recounts€others,Ð \+¬&. Ðbut€we€have€omitted€those€that€lack€any€conceivable€probativeÐ ° Ðvalue):Ð \¬ ÐÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  ÝÓÓà8 ` àÝ‚Šc½Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€October€5,€1999,€Barbara€DiGirolamoÐ X Ðaccused€the€plaintiff€of€throwing€aÐ Þ. Ðtampon€at€a€coworker.€€The€chargeÐ ´  Ðfizzled€out€after€several€witnessesÐ Š Ú Ðattested€to€its€falsity.݃Šc½öÝŒÐ` °¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚ŠciÝð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€October€26,€1999,€a€coworker€shoutedÐ  \  Ðthat€the€plaintiff€was€the€"scum€of€theÐ â 2  Ðearth."€€Another€loudly€proclaimed,€inÐ ¸  Ðreference€to€the€plaintiff,€"I€smell€aÐ ŽÞ  Ðrat,€do€you€smell€a€rat?"€€Yet€anotherÐ d´  Ðlamented€that€the€parking€enforcementÐ :Š  Ðofficers'€"good"€supervisor€had€beenÐ `  Ðdrummed€out€of€office.€€The€plaintiffÐ æ6 Ðcomplained€to€a€senior€supervisor,Ð ¼  ÐIrene€Landry,€who€took€no€action.݃Šci݌В⨠x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚Šc8 Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€December€8,€1999,€a€new€employeeÐ >Ž Ðtold€the€plaintiff€that€although€he€hadÐ d Ðno€problem€with€her,€other€coworkersÐ ê: Ðhad€advised€him€to€"stay€away"€becauseÐ À Ðshe€was€"trouble."݃Šc8 _ ÝŒÐ–æ¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚ŠcÓ!Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€December€9,€1999,€the€entireÐ B’ Ðdepartment€ostracized€the€plaintiffÐ h Ðduring€a€holiday€party.€€Consequently,Ð î> Ðshe€sat€alone€for€two€hours.€€A€deputyÐ Ä Ðcommissioner€saw€her€sitting€alone,Ð šê Ðacknowledged€the€ostracism,€andÐ pÀ  Ðsuggested€that€she€change€her€shift.€Ð F –! ÐThe€plaintiff€took€the€advice,€but€theÐ !l" Ðharassment€continued.݃ŠcÓ!ú!ÝŒÐò!B#¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚ŠcL$Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€December€16,€1999,€DiGirolamoÐ ž#î% Ðinformed€the€plaintiff€that€allÐ t$Ä& Ðpersonnel€on€her€shift€had€to€takeÐ J%š ' Ðtheir€dinner€breaks€separately.€€TheÐ  &p!( Ðplaintiff€later€learned€that€this€wasÐ ö&F") Ðnot€true€and€that€she€was€the€onlyÐ Ì'#* Ðperson€who€had€been€told€to€eat€alone.݃ŠcL$s$݌Т(ò#+¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÔ% € ÔÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚Šcj&Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€December€21,€1999,€BernadetteÐ N*ž%- ÐGilardi€announced€in€front€of€theÐ $+t&. Ðplaintiff€that€she€would€be€taking€up€aÐ ú+J'/ Ðcollection€for€Ortiz.€€She€proceeded€toÐ ° Ðdo€so€during€working€hours.݃Šcj&‘&݌І֨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚Šc (Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€December€23,€1999,€the€plaintiffÐ 2‚ Ðattended€a€holiday€party€on€theÐ X Ðdepartment's€premises.€€The€collectionÐ Þ. Ðfor€Ortiz€was€in€full€flower.€Ð ´  ÐCoworkers€waved€the€money€they€hadÐ Š Ú Ðamassed€in€the€plaintiff's€face,Ð ` ° Ðcrowing€"look€how€much€money€we€haveÐ 6 †  Ðcollected!"€€One€of€the€plaintiff'sÐ  \  Ðsuperiors,€Kathy€O'Brien,€advised€herÐ â 2  Ðto€"go€to€the€office"€about€theÐ ¸  Ðharassment.€€There€is€no€evidence,Ð ŽÞ  Ðhowever,€that€O'Brien€intervened€toÐ d´  Ðstop€the€ongoing€conduct.݃Šc (0(ÝŒÐ:Š ¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚ŠcW+Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝOn€December€30,€1999,€the€plaintiff€metÐ æ6 Ðwith€a€high„level€supervisor,€KathleenÐ ¼  ÐMoccia.€€She€described€the€toll€thatÐ ’â Ðthe€harassment€was€taking€on€her€andÐ h¸ Ðasked€Moccia€why€management€wasÐ >Ž Ðtolerating€the€harassment.€€Moccia€didÐ d Ðnot€intervene.€€Moreover,€she€statedÐ ê: Ðthat€she€did€not€think€that€theÐ À Ðharassment€would€stop;€rather,€sheÐ –æ Ðforecast€that€it€would€become€"tenÐ l¼ Ðtimes€worse"€with€the€plaintiff'sÐ B’ Ðrecent€shift€change.݃ŠcW+~+ÝŒÐh¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚Šcu.Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝIn€January€of€2000,€a€tow€truck€driverÐ Ä Ðtold€the€plaintiff€that€Gilardi€hadÐ šê Ðbegun€circulating€a€petition€urgingÐ pÀ  Ðmanagement€to€dismiss€the€plaintiff,Ð F –! Ðbut€that€he€had€refused€to€sign€it.݃Šcu.œ.ÝŒÐ!l"¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚Šc0Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝDuring€a€snowstorm€that€month,€GilardiÐ È"$ Ðrefused€to€pick€up€the€plaintiff€fromÐ ž#î% Ðher€route.€€Although€that€refusal,€dulyÐ t$Ä& Ðreported,€was€in€derogation€ofÐ J%š ' Ðdepartmental€policy,€there€is€noÐ  &p!( Ðevidence€that€Gilardi€was€sanctioned€orÐ ö&F") Ðpunished€in€any€way.݃Šc0D0ÝŒÐÌ'#*¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓÓà ` àOn€March€6,€2000,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€complaint€withÐ x)È$, Ðthe€Massachusetts€Commission€Against€Discrimination€(MCAD)€and€theÐ $+t&. Ðfederal€Equal€Employment€Opportunity€Commission€(EEOC).€€TheÐ ° Ðharassment€nonetheless€persisted.€€Two€examples€follow:Ð \¬ ÐÓÓÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚Šc—3Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝIn€February€of€2001,€the€plaintiffÐ Þ. Ðapproached€a€van€that€was€used€toÐ ´  Ðtransport€parking€enforcement€officersÐ Š Ú Ðto€their€posts.€€Gilardi€was€at€theÐ ` ° Ðwheel.€€When€she€saw€the€plaintiffÐ 6 †  Ðapproach,€she€closed€the€van's€door,Ð  \  Ðignored€the€plaintiff's€tapping€on€theÐ â 2  Ðwindow,€and€drove€away,€nearly€strikingÐ ¸  Ðthe€plaintiff.€€The€plaintiff€reportedÐ ŽÞ  Ðthe€incident€and€Gilardi€admitted€thatÐ d´  Ðshe€had€seen€the€plaintiff€butÐ :Š  Ðnonetheless€had€pulled€away.€€There€isÐ `  Ðno€evidence€that€Gilardi€wasÐ æ6 Ðdisciplined€for€this€conduct.݃Šc—3¾3݌м ¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ŠcÿÝÝ  Ýà8 ` àÝ‚Šc17Ýð"ðà0¨ ` x` xàÝ  ÝIn€March€of€2001,€Gilardi€told€aÐ h¸ Ðcoworker,€in€reference€to€Ortiz'sÐ >Ž Ðfiring,€that€the€plaintiff's€"payday"Ð d Ðwas€drawing€near.݃Šc17X7ÝŒÐê:¨ x¨ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓÓà ` àThe€plaintiff€alleges€that,€as€a€result€of€this€steadyÐ –æ Ðstream€of€what€she€characterizes€as€retaliatory€harassment,€sheÐ B’ Ðlost€weight,€experienced€nightmares€and€panic€attacks,€becameÐ î> Ðanxious€at€work,€and€was€forced€to€seek€medical€care.Ð šê Ðà@ˆˆìàò òB.€€òòTravel€of€the€Caseóó.ó óˆÐ F –! Ðà ` àOn€October€16,€2002,€the€plaintiff€requested€withdrawalÐ "^# Ðof€her€administrative€complaint€in€order€to€pave€the€way€for€theÐ º# % Ðinstitution€of€suit.€€The€MCAD€obliged€and€the€plaintiff€commencedÐ f%¶ ' Ða€civil€action€against€the€city€in€a€Massachusetts€state€court.€Ð 'b") ÐHer€complaint,€filed€on€November€1,€2002,€charged€the€city€withÐ ¾($+ Ðviolations€of€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€151B,€ðð€4.€€On€April€25,€2003,Ð j*º%- Ðthe€plaintiff€received€a€right„to„sue€letter€from€the€EEOC.€€OneÐ ,f'/ Ðmonth€later,€she€amended€her€state€court€complaint€to€include€TitleÐ ° ÐVII€claims.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€2000e„2,€e„3.€€At€that€point,€theÐ \¬ Ðcity€removed€the€case€to€the€federal€district€court.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.Ð X Ððððð€1331,€1441.Ð ´  Ðà ` àIn€due€course,€the€city€moved€for€summary€judgment€underòòóóÐ ` ° ÐFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€56,€arguing€(i)€that€most€of€the€plaintiff's€claimsÐ  \  Ðunder€chapter€151B€were€time„barred;€(ii)€that€those€which€remainedÐ ¸  Ðwere€not€actionable;€(iii)€that€as€to€the€federal€retaliationÐ d´  Ðclaims,€the€evidence,€even€when€interpreted€in€the€light€mostÐ `  Ðfavorable€to€the€plaintiff,€did€not€reveal€any€actionable€conduct;Ð ¼  Ðand€(iv)€that€the€city€could€not€be€held€liable€for€Ortiz'sÐ h¸ Ðbehavior€because€it€had€taken€prompt€and€effective€remedial€action.€Ð d ÐThe€plaintiff€opposed€the€motion.€€Ruling€ore€sponte,€the€districtÐ À Ðcourt€granted€summary€judgment€for€the€city.€€The€court€concludedÐ l¼ Ðthat€there€was€no€timely€sexual€harassment€claim€under€chapter€151BÐ h Ðand€that€the€city's€response€to€the€Ortiz€incident€foreclosed€anyÐ Ä Ðsexual€harassment€claim€under€Title€VII.€€As€to€the€retaliationÐ pÀ  Ðclaims,€the€court€acknowledged€that,€viewing€the€proof€in€theÐ !l" Ðrequisite€light,€the€plaintiff€had€been€subjected€to€a€"series€ofÐ È"$ Ðdistasteful,€unpleasant,€non„empathetic€acts€.€.€.€by€a€series€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðsubordinate€officials."€€Nevertheless,€the€court€concluded€that€theÐ  &p!( Ðretaliation€claims€must€fail€because€none€of€the€individualÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âincidents€was€an€"adverse€employment€action[]"€that€bore€directlyÐ x)È$, Ðupon€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€plaintiff's€employment.€€ThisÐ ° Ðtimely€appeal€followed.Ð \¬ Ðâ âò òII.€€ANALYSISó óÐ X Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff's€suit€implicates€both€federal€and€stateÐ Ð  Ðanti„discrimination€and€anti„retaliation€statues.€€It€requires€usÐ | Ì Ðto€confront€ð"ð€and€resolve€ð"ð€two€questions€of€first€impression€inÐ ( x  Ðthis€circuit.Ð Ô$  Ðà ` à€As€framed,€all€of€the€plaintiff's€claims€are€dependentÐ €Ð  Ðupon€her€allegation€that€the€city€tolerated€a€hostile€workÐ ,|  Ðenvironment.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€general,€a€plaintiff€may€recover€on€such€a€theoryÐ Ø( Ðwhen€"the€workplace€is€permeated€with€discriminatory€intimidation,Ð „Ô Ðridicule,€and€insult€that€is€sufficiently€severe€or€pervasive€toÐ 0€ Ðalter€the€conditions€of€the€victim's€employment€and€create€anÐ Ü, Ðabusive€working€environment."€€òòHarrisóó€v.€òòForklift€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€510Ð ˆØ ÐU.S.€17,€21€(1993)€(citations€and€internal€quotation€marksÐ 4„ Ðomitted);ØØ€òòaccordóó€òòO'Rourkeóó€v.€òòCity€of€Providenceóó,€235€F.3d€713,€728Ð à0 Ð(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòMuzzyóó€v.€òòCahillane€Motors,€Inc.óó,€749€N.E.2d€691,Ð ŒÜ  Ð694€(Mass.€2001).€€The€plaintiff's€hostile€work€environment€claimsÐ 8!ˆ" Ðare€of€two€types.Ð ä"4$ Ðà ` àMost€hostile€work€environments€are€bred€from€an€ongoingÐ $à& Ðseries€of€harassing€incidents.€€The€plaintiff's€claim€of€a€hostileÐ <&Œ!( Ðwork€environment,€based€singularly€upon€Ortiz's€assault,€is€not€ofÐ ° Ðthis€ilk.€€However,€a€single€act€of€harassment€may,€if€egregiousÐ \¬ Ðenough,€suffice€to€evince€a€hostile€work€environment.€€òòSeeóó€òòFaragheróóÐ X Ðv.€òòCity€of€Boca€Ratonóó,€524€U.S.€775,€788€(1998)€(Title€VII);€òòGnerreóóÐ ´  Ðv.€òòMCADóó,€524€N.E.2d€84,€88„89€(Mass.€1988)€(chapter€151B).€€TheÐ ` ° Ðplaintiff's€claims€of€a€retaliatory€hostile€work€environment€areÐ  \  Ðmore€stereotypical.€€These€claims€are€based€upon€the€pervasiveÐ ¸  Ðretaliation€that€the€plaintiff€allegedly€experienced€afterÐ d´  Ðcomplaining€about€Ortiz's€assault.Ð `  Ðà ` àWith€this€brief€preface,€we€proceed€to€explicate€theÐ ¼  Ðsummary€judgment€standard€and€then€examine€the€anatomy€of€theÐ h¸ Ðplaintiff's€claims.Ð d Ðà@ô ô ìàò òA.€€òòThe€Summary€Judgment€Standardóó.ó óˆÐ À Ðà ` àAn€order€granting€summary€judgment€engenders€de€novoÐ ˆØ Ðreview.€€òòSerapionóó€v.€òòMartinezóó,€119€F.3d€982,€987€(1st€Cir.€1997).€Ð 4„ ÐIn€conducting€that€review,€we€must€scrutinize€the€evidence€in€theÐ à0 Ðlight€most€agreeable€to€the€nonmoving€party,€giving€that€party€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðbenefit€of€any€and€all€reasonable€inferences.€€òòCoxóó€v.€òòHaineyóó,€391Ð 8!ˆ" ÐF.3d€25,€27€(1st€Cir.€2004).€€For€her€part,€the€nonmovant€bearsÐ ä"4$ Ð"the€burden€of€producing€specific€facts€sufficient€to€deflect€theÐ $à& Ðswing€of€the€summary€judgment€scythe."€€òòMulvihillóó€v.€òòTop„Flite€GolfÐ <&Œ!( ÐCo.óó,€335€F.3d€15,€19€(1st€Cir.€2003).€€Those€facts,€typically€setÐ è'8#* Ðforth€in€affidavits,€depositions,€and€the€like,€must€haveÐ ”)ä$, Ðevidentiary€value;€as€a€rule,€"[e]vidence€that€is€inadmissible€atÐ @+&. Ðtrial,€such€as€inadmissible€hearsay,€may€not€be€considered€onÐ ° Ðsummary€judgment."€€òòVazquezóó€v.€òòLopez„Rosarioóó,€134€F.3d€28,€33€(1stÐ \¬ ÐCir.€1998);€òòaccordóó€òòGarsideóó,€895€F.2d€at€49.Ð X Ðà ` àMost€of€the€facts€presented€by€the€plaintiff,€asÐ ´  Ðrecounted€above,€satisfy€this€standard.€€In€large€part,€theÐ ` ° Ðchronicled€events€are€within€the€plaintiff's€personal€knowledge.€Ð  \  ÐThe€insults€and€taunting€that€the€plaintiff€recounts€do€not€createÐ ¸  Ðhearsay€problems;€those€statements€are€not€offered€for€their€truth,Ð d´  Ðbut,€rather,€to€show€that€the€words€were€spoken€(and,€thus,Ð `  Ðcontributed€to€the€hostile€work€environment).€€They€are,€therefore,Ð ¼  Ðadmissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòMotaóó€v.€òòUniv.€of€Tex.€Houston€Health€Sci.€Ctr.óó,Ð h¸ Ð261€F.3d€512,€526€n.46€(5th€Cir.€2001).€€The€statements€made€byÐ d Ðsupervisors€are€admissible€as€non„hearsay€statements€of€theÐ À Ðdefendant's€agents€made€within€the€scope€of€their€employment.€€òòSeeóóÐ l¼ ÐFed.€R.€Evid.€801(d)(2)(D).Ð h Ðà ` àWe€note,€however,€that€two€statements€give€us€pause.€€TheÐ Ä Ðfirst€is€a€statement€from€an€unnamed€coworker€that€other€employeesÐ pÀ  Ðtold€him€to€"stay€away"€from€the€plaintiff€as€she€was€"trouble."Ð !l" ÐInsofar€as€the€plaintiff€is€attempting€to€introduce€this€statementÐ È"$ Ðas€evidence€of€òòotheróó€coworkers'€harassing€behavior,€it€is€hearsay;Ð t$Ä& Ðits€probative€value€ultimately€depends€on€the€truth€of€theÐ  &p!( Ðâ âdeclarant's€own€unsworn€out„of„court€utterance.€€It€is,€therefore,Ð Ì'#* Ðinadmissible.ØØ×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Evid.€801,€802;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€ò òó óòòVazquezóó,€134Ð ° Ðâ âF.3d€at€34.€€A€similar€problem€exists€with€respect€to€theÐ \¬ Ðplaintiff's€assertion€that€a€tow€truck€driver€said€that€Gilardi€hadÐ X Ðbeen€circulating€a€petition€to€have€the€plaintiff€fired.€Ð ´  ÐConsequently,€we€cannot€consider€the€content€of€either€statement€inÐ ` ° Ðanalyzing€the€plaintiff's€claims.€€òòSeeóó€òòLaRouóó€v.€òòRidlonóó,€98€F.3dÐ  \  Ð659,€663€(1st€Cir.€1996)€(branding€incompetent€on€summary€judgmentÐ ¸  Ðportions€of€a€party's€affidavit€recounting€inadmissible€hearsay).Ð d´  Ðà@hh#ìàò òB.€€òòTimelinessóó.ó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€first€question€that€we€must€answer€pertains€toÐ Ø( Ðtimeliness.€€In€order€to€prosecute€a€harassment€claim€under€eitherÐ „Ô ÐMassachusetts€or€federal€law,€an€aggrieved€party€must€first€file€aÐ 0€ Ðtimely€administrative€complaint.€€The€time€parameters€for€theseÐ Ü, Ðfilings€differ.€€In€1999,€chapter€151B€mandated€filing€with€theÐ ˆØ ÐMCAD€within€six€months€of€the€alleged€violation.€€òòSeeóó€€Mass.€Gen.Ð 4„ ÐLaws€ch.€151B,€ðð€5€(1989)€(amended€2002).€€By€contrast,€the€EEOCÐ à0 Ðfiling€had€to€occur€within€300€days€of€the€date€of€the€allegedÐ ŒÜ  Ðviolation.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000e„5(e)(1);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSabreeóó€v.Ð 8!ˆ" ÐòòUnited€Bhd.€of€Carpenters€&€Joinersóó,€921€F.2d€396,€399€&€n.5€(1stÐ ä"4$ ÐCir.€1990)€(discussing€timely€filing€of€charges€of€discriminationÐ $à& Ðwith€the€EEOC€in€"deferral"€states,€i.e.,€states€such€asÐ ° ÐMassachusetts,€which€have€their€own€civil€rights€statute€andÐ \¬ Ðagency).€€There€is€no€dispute€that€the€plaintiff€met€theseÐ X Ðadministrative€deadlines;€the€earliest€incident€of€allegedÐ ´  Ðharassment€occurred€on€September€11,€1999,€and€the€plaintiff'sÐ ` ° Ðadministrative€complaint€was€filed€with€both€agencies€on€March€6,Ð  \  Ð2000.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àA€claimant€who€wishes€to€sue€under€chapter€151B€mustÐ d´  Ðallow€a€waiting€period€to€pass,€file€her€suit,€and€notify€the€MCADÐ `  Ð(which€is€then€required€to€dismiss€the€administrative€proceeding).€Ð ¼  ÐMass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€151B,€ðð€9.€€This€civil€suit€must€be€institutedÐ h¸ Ðno€later€than€three€years€after€the€occurrence€of€the€allegedÐ d Ðviolation.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€The€federal€prototype€is€different.€€A€TitleÐ À ÐVII€claimant€may€sue€only€after€the€EEOC€issues€a€right„to„sueÐ l¼ Ðletter.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000e„5(f)(1).€€Once€such€a€letter€isÐ h Ðreceived,€the€claimant€must€file€her€suit€within€ninety€days.€€òòId.óó€Ð Ä ÐThe€fact€that€an€analogous€state€statute€of€limitations€has€expiredÐ pÀ  Ðwith€respect€to€a€parallel€state€harassment€action€does€not€createÐ !l" Ða€temporal€bar€to€a€Title€VII€suit.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurghóó€v.€òòBorough€Councilóó,Ð È"$ Ð251€F.3d€465,€473€(3d€Cir.€2001);€òòKirkóó€v.€òòRockwell€Int'l€Corp.óó,€578Ð t$Ä& ÐF.2d€814,€819€(9th€Cir.€1978);€òòDraperóó€v.€òòU.S.€Pipe€&€Foundry€Co.óó,Ð  &p!( Ð527€F.2d€515,€522€(6th€Cir.€1975).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àHere,€the€plaintiff's€Title€VII€claims€are€unquestionablyÐ x)È$, Ðtimely:€€she€received€a€right„to„sue€letter€on€April€25,€2003€andÐ $+t&. Ðadded€her€Title€VII€claims€to€her€pending€suit€on€May€19,€2003.€Ð ° ÐThe€situation€is€more€tenebrous€with€regard€to€the€chapter€151BÐ \¬ Ðclaims.€€The€plaintiff€first€brought€suit€on€these€claims€onÐ X ÐNovember€1,€2002.€€Based€on€the€three„year€statute€of€limitationsÐ ´  Ðapplicable€to€chapter€151B€actions,€this€would€seem€to€forecloseÐ ` ° Ðrecovery€for€any€incidents€that€occurred€prior€to€November€1,€1999,Ð  \  Ðincluding€the€original€sexual€harassment€and€several€of€theÐ ¸  Ðinstances€of€alleged€retaliation.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€offers€a€theory€as€to€why€these€claimsÐ `  Ðnonetheless€are€timely.€€After€reviewing€her€thesis,€we€concludeÐ ¼  Ðthat€her€state„law€claims€based€on€the€Ortiz€imbroglio€are€barredÐ h¸ Ðbut€that€her€retaliation€claims€are€not.€€We€explain€briefly.Ð d Ðà ` àMassachusetts€law€recognizes€that€"some€claims€ofÐ À Ðdiscrimination€involve€a€series€of€related€events€that€have€to€beÐ l¼ Ðviewed€in€their€totality€in€order€to€assess€adequately€theirÐ h Ðdiscriminatory€nature€and€impact."€€òòCuddyeróó€v.€òòStop€&€ShopÐ Ä ÐSupermarket€Co.óó,€750€N.E.2d€928,€936€(Mass.€2001).€€Under€thisÐ pÀ  Ðcontinuing€violation€doctrine,€a€plaintiff€who€ordinarily€would€beÐ !l" Ðunable€to€recover€damages€for€discrete€acts€of€discriminationÐ È"$ Ðfalling€outside€the€limitations€period€may€avoid€that€bar€if€thoseÐ t$Ä& Ðacts€are€shown€to€be€part€of€a€pattern€of€discrimination€anchoredÐ  &p!( Ðby€acts€that€occurred€within€the€limitations€period.€€òòId.óó€at€936„Ð Ì'#* Ð37.€€Hostile€environment€claims,€by€their€nature,€often€fall€withinÐ x)È$, Ðthis€rubric.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€937;€òòCliftonóó€v.€òòMass.€Bay€Transp.€Auth.óó,Ð $+t&. Ð815€N.E.2d€614,€624€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€2004).€€In€such€situations,Ð ° Ðhowever,€the€anchoring€event€must€"substantially€relate[]€toÐ \¬ Ðearlier€incidents€of€abuse€and€substantially€contribute[]€to€theÐ X Ðcontinuation€of€a€hostile€work€environment."€€òòCuddyeróó,€750€N.E.2dÐ ´  Ðat€938.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€application€of€the€continuing€violation€doctrineÐ  \  Ðsometimes€has€the€effect€of€expanding€the€three„year€filingÐ ¸  Ðdeadline€for€suits€under€chapter€151B.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCliftonóó,€815Ð d´  ÐN.E.2d€at€620„21;€òòCarteróó€v.€òòComm'r€of€Corr.óó,€681€N.E.2d€1255,€1261„Ð `  Ð62€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1997).€€We€thus€confront€the€question€of€whetherÐ ¼  Ðthe€facts€in€this€case,€taken€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ h¸ Ðplaintiff,€make€out€a€continuing€violation.Ð d Ðà ` àOn€the€one€hand,€we€think€that€reasonable€jurors€couldÐ À Ðfind€that€the€distasteful€and€unpleasant€actions€undertaken€by€theÐ l¼ Ðplaintiff's€coworkers€before€and€after€November€1,€1999€were€partÐ h Ðof€a€pattern€of€retaliation.€€For€one€thing,€the€harassment€beganÐ Ä Ðsoon€after€the€plaintiff€lodged€her€initial€complaint€about€Ortiz'sÐ pÀ  Ðboorishness€and€surfaced€most€frequently€in€the€first€few€monthsÐ !l" Ðafter€Ortiz€was€dismissed.€€When€harassment€follows€hard€on€theÐ È"$ Ðheels€of€protected€activity,€the€timing€often€is€stronglyÐ t$Ä& Ðsuggestive€of€retaliation.€€òòSeeóó€€òòOliveróó€v.€òòDigital€Equip.€Corp.óó,Ð  &p!( Ð846€F.2d€103,€110€(1st€Cir.€1988);€òòMoleóó€v.€òòUniv.€of€Mass.óó,€814Ð Ì'#* ÐN.E.2d€329,€341€(Mass.€2004).€€For€another€thing,€the€harassmentÐ x)È$, Ðitself€offered€circumstantial€evidence€of€causation;€coworkersÐ $+t&. Ðreferred€to€the€plaintiff€as€a€"rat"€(a€term€that€connotes€anÐ ° Ðinformer€or€snitch),€lamented€the€firing€of€their€"goodÐ \¬ Ðsupervisor,"€and€took€up€a€collection€for€his€benefit.€€Even€asÐ X Ðlate€as€2001,€Gilardi€committed€an€act€of€harassment€and,€shortlyÐ ´  Ðthereafter,€made€reference€to€the€plaintiff's€upcoming€"payday."€Ð ` ° ÐUp€to€that€point,€we€believe€that€reasonable€jurors€could€deem€theÐ  \  Ðlisted€incidents€to€comprise€a€pattern€of€retaliatory€harassment.€Ð ¸  ÐSince€this€pattern€includes€events€within€and€without€theÐ d´  Ðlimitations€period,€we€are€free€to€use€incidents€from€both€periodsÐ `  Ðin€deciding€whether€the€plaintiff€has€made€out€a€prima€facie€caseÐ ¼  Ðof€a€hostile€work€environment€under€chapter€151B.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThat€said,€we€find€unpersuasive€the€plaintiff's€laboredÐ d Ðeffort€to€include€Ortiz's€solitary€act€of€sexual€harassment€as€partÐ À Ðof€the€pattern€of€subsequent€retaliatory€acts.€€This€attemptedÐ l¼ Ðagglomeration€relies€heavily,€but€mistakenly,€upon€the€MCAD'sÐ h Ðdecision€in€òòMuiseóó€v.€òòCredit€Exch.óó,€17€M.D.L.R.€1684€(MCAD€1995),€aÐ Ä Ðcase€in€which€the€agency€said€that€timely€incidents€of€retaliationÐ pÀ  Ðmay€anchor€an€untimely€incident€of€sexual€harassment€if€"the€chargeÐ !l" Ðof€retaliation€is€inextricably€related€to€the€original€charge€ofÐ È"$ Ðsexual€harassment."€€òòId.óó€at€1690.ò òó ó€€The€plaintiff€overlooks€that€inÐ t$Ä& Ðorder€to€invoke€this€doctrine,€a€claimant€must€show€at€a€bareÐ  &p!( Ðminimum€a€series€of€discriminatory€acts€that€emanate€from€the€sameÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âdiscriminatory€animus.€€òòSeeóó€òòProvencheróó€v.€òòCVS€Pharmacyóó,€145€F.3d€5,Ð x)È$, Ð14€(1st€Cir.€1998);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMorriseyóó€v.€òòHoliday€Innóó,€25€M.D.L.R.Ð ° Ð74,€86€n.12€(MCAD€2003)€(citing€òòProvencheróó).€€We€explain€briefly.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àWhen€an€individual€sexually€harasses€a€victim€and€thenÐ X Ðengages€in€non„sexual€retaliatory€harassment,€the€sexual€and€non„Ð ´  Ðsexual€harassment€arguably€may€be€part€and€parcel€of€the€sameÐ ` ° Ðviolation.€€òòCf.óó€òòO'Rourkeóó,€235€F.3d€at€729€(noting€that,€in€suchÐ  \  Ðcircumstances,€the€non„sexual€harassment€is€still€charged€with€theÐ ¸  Ðoriginal€animus).€€òòButóó€òòcf.óó€òòMorrisóó€v.€òòOldham€County€Fiscal€Courtóó,Ð d´  Ð201€F.3d€784,€790„91€(6th€Cir.€2000)€(refusing€to€aggregate€sexualÐ `  Ðharassment€and€non„sexual€retaliatory€harassment€undertaken€by€aÐ ¼  Ðsingle€supervisor).€€That€was€the€fact€pattern€in€òòMuiseóó,€17Ð h¸ ÐM.D.L.R.€at€1686„87.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€majority€of€cases€are€not€cut€from€this€seamlessÐ À Ðcloth.€€Even€when€retaliation€is€derivative€of€a€particular€act€ofÐ l¼ Ðharassment,€it€normally€does€not€stem€from€the€same€animus.€€MostÐ h Ðoften,€retaliation€is€a€distinct€and€independent€act€ofÐ Ä Ðdiscrimination,€motivated€by€a€discrete€intention€to€punish€aÐ pÀ  Ðperson€who€has€rocked€the€boat€by€complaining€about€an€unlawfulÐ !l" Ðemployment€practice.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòRuffinoóó€v.€òòState€St.€Bank€&€TrustÐ È"$ ÐCo.óó,€908€F.€Supp.€1019,€1040€(D.€Mass.€1995);€òòTinkhamóó€v.€òòFlatleyÐ t$Ä& ÐCo.óó,€No.€98„BEM„0437,€2004€WL€1746070,€at€*12€(MCAD€July€7,€2004)Ð  &p!( Ð(quoting€òòRuffinoóó).€€That€is€a€different€animus€than€the€sexualÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âanimus€that€drove€the€original€harassment.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThis€case€aptly€illustrates€the€disparity€of€motives.€Ð ° Ðâ âOrtiz's€attack€was€a€one„time€incident€of€sexual€harassment.€€ByÐ \¬ Ðcontrast,€the€retaliatory€harassment€consisted€of€a€series€ofÐ X Ðdiscrete€acts€orchestrated€by€a€cohort€of€different€individualsÐ ´  Ð(not€including€Ortiz)€and€occurring€over€a€period€of€many€monthsÐ ` ° Ð(beginning€only€after€Ortiz€was€suspended).€€Of€criticalÐ  \  Ðimportance,€nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€these€retaliatoryÐ ¸  Ðacts€were€undertaken€for€reasons€related€to€the€plaintiff's€gender.€Ð d´  ÐAs€such,€the€sexual€harassment€and€retaliatory€harassment€in€thisÐ `  Ðcase€must€be€viewed€for€what€they€are:€€two€separate€andÐ ¼  Ðindependent€harms.€€òòSeeóóò òó ó€òòGoguenóó€v.€òòQuality€Plan€Adm'rsóó,€11€Mass.€L.Ð h¸ ÐRptr.€288,€2000€WL€282485,€at€*4€(Mass.€Super.€Ct.€2000)€(holdingÐ d Ðthat€sexual€harassment€by€one€person€and€subsequent€retaliation€byÐ À Ðanother€are€not€sufficiently€related€to€add€up€to€a€singleÐ l¼ Ðcontinuing€violation);€òòcf.óó€òòSitaróó€v.€òòInd.€Dep't.€of€Transp.óó,€344Ð h ÐF.3d€720,€726€(7th€Cir.€2003)€(noting€generally€that€"retaliationÐ Ä Ð.€.€.€and€sexual€harassment€charges€are€not€'like€or€reasonablyÐ pÀ  Ðrelated'€to€one€another€to€permit€an€EEOC€charge€of€one€type€ofÐ !l" Ðwrong€to€support€a€subsequent€civil€suit€for€another").€€TheÐ È"$ Ðplaintiff€cannot€rely€on€the€second€to€revive€the€first.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àFor€much€the€same€reason,€we€decline€the€plaintiff'sÐ  &p!( Ðinvitation€to€treat€her€case€as€one€involving€a€"mixed„motive"Ð Ì'#* Ðclaim.€€In€support€of€this€entreaty,€the€plaintiff€relies€upon€òòLamóóÐ x)È$, Ðv.€òòUniv.€of€Hawai'ióó,€40€F.3d€1551€(9th€Cir.€1994),€and€òòHicksóó€v.Ð $+t&. ÐòòGates€Rubber€Co.óó,€833€F.2d€1406€(10th€Cir.€1987).€€Both€decisionsÐ ° Ðheld,€however,€that€race€and€sex€may€be€aggregated€under€Title€VIIÐ \¬ Ðwhere€the€allegations€involved€discrimination€against€a€subclass€ofÐ X Ðpeople€sharing€both€protected€traits€but€not€against€those€sharingÐ ´  Ðonly€one€or€the€other.€€òòSeeóó€òòLamóó,€40€F.3d€at€1561„62€(involvingÐ ` ° Ðdiscrimination€against€a€subclass€of€Asian€women);€òòHicksóó,€833€F.2dÐ  \  Ðat€1416€&€n.2€(involving€discrimination€against€a€subclass€of€blackÐ ¸  Ðwomen).€€Such€a€claim€still€involves€a€single€wrong€and€a€singleÐ d´  Ðharm,€prompted€by€a€single€animus.€€That€is€clearly€not€the€caseÐ `  Ðhere:€€Ortiz's€assault€was€not€directed€at€the€plaintiff€due€to€herÐ ¼  Ðstatus€as€a€complaining€woman,€as€she€was€not€yet€a€member€of€thatÐ h¸ Ðsubclass€when€the€assault€occurred.€€òòLamóó€and€òòHicksóó€are,€therefore,Ð d Ðinapposite.Ð À Ðà ` àTo€sum€up,€we€find€timely€the€plaintiff's€Title€VIIÐ l¼ Ðsexual€harassment€claim€and€her€federal€and€state€claims€forÐ h Ðretaliatory€harassment.€€We€find€untimely,€however,€her€state„lawÐ Ä Ðsexual€harassment€claim€(and,€therefore,€affirm€the€districtÐ pÀ  Ðcourt's€entry€of€summary€judgment€for€the€defendant€on€that€claim).Ð !l" Ðà@ìàò òC.€€òòRetaliatory€Hostile€Work€Environment:€€Cognizabilityóó.ó óˆÐ È"$ Ðà ` àWe€turn€now€to€the€cognizability€of€the€retaliatoryÐ $à& Ðharassment€claims.€€Both€Title€VII€and€chapter€151B€containÐ <&Œ!( Ðprovisions€that€make€it€unlawful€for€employers€to€retaliate€againstÐ è'8#* Ðpersons€who€complain€about€unlawfully€discriminatory€employmentÐ ”)ä$, Ðpractices.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000e„3(a);€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€151B,Ð @+&. Ððð€4(4).€€To€engage€the€gears€of€either€statute,€a€plaintiff€mustÐ ° Ðshow€that€(i)€she€undertook€protected€conduct,€(ii)€she€suffered€anÐ \¬ Ðadverse€employment€action,€and€(iii)€the€two€were€causally€linked.€Ð X ÐòòSeeóó€òòDressleróó€v.€òòDanielóó,€315€F.3d€75,€78€(1st€Cir.€2003)€(TitleÐ ´  ÐVII);€òòSullivanóó€v.€òòRaytheon€Co.óó,€262€F.3d€41,€48€(1st€Cir.€2001)Ð ` ° Ð(chapter€151B).Ð  \  Ðà ` àHere,€there€is€no€dispute€that€the€plaintiff€engaged€inÐ ¸  Ðprotected€activity€by€filing€a€complaint.€€The€parties€instead€sparÐ d´  Ðover€the€second€and€third€elements,€which€in€this€instance€collapseÐ `  Ðinto€a€single€question:€€did€the€plaintiff€sustain€an€adverseÐ ¼  Ðemployment€action€in€the€form€of€a€hostile€work€environment€basedÐ h¸ Ðon€retaliation€for€filing€a€sexual€harassment€complaint€againstÐ d ÐOrtiz?Ð À Ðà ` àTypically,€an€adverse€employment€action€involves€aÐ l¼ Ðdiscrete€change€in€the€terms€and€conditions€of€employment€(say,€aÐ h Ðdischarge,€demotion,€or€reduction€in€pay).€€This€case€is€moreÐ Ä Ðnuanced.€€In€order€for€the€plaintiff€to€survive€summary€judgment€onÐ pÀ  Ðthis€record,€she€must€show€that,€as€a€legal€matter,€the€creationÐ !l" Ðand€perpetuation€of€a€hostile€work€environment€itself€canÐ È"$ Ðconstitute€a€retaliatory€adverse€employment€action.€€She€also€mustÐ t$Ä& Ðshow€that,€as€a€factual€matter,€her€coworkers'€actions€furnished€aÐ  &p!( Ðsufficient€basis€to€ground€a€finding€that€a€hostile€workÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âenvironment€actually€existed.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àAs€to€the€legal€point,€the€plaintiff€maintains€that€aÐ ° Ðâ âhostile€work€environment€may€constitute€an€adverse€employmentÐ \¬ Ðaction€for€purposes€of€both€Title€VII€and€chapter€151B.€€The€cityÐ X Ðdemurs.€€It€notes€that€the€plaintiff€has€not€been€cashiered,Ð ´  Ðdemoted,€denied€promotion,€stripped€of€meaningful€duties,€orÐ ` ° Ðotherwise€materially€disadvantaged€in€the€terms€and€conditions€ofÐ  \  Ðher€employment.€€Thus,€the€city€argues,€she€cannot€be€said€to€haveÐ ¸  Ðsuffered€an€adverse€employment€action.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThis€precise€question€ð"ð€whether€a€hostile€workÐ `  Ðenvironment€can€constitute€a€retaliatory€adverse€employment€actionÐ ¼  Ðð"ð€has€never€been€fully€addressed€either€by€this€court€(with€regardÐ h¸ Ðto€Title€VII)€or€by€the€Massachusetts€Supreme€Judicial€Court€(withÐ d Ðregard€to€chapter€151B).€€We€look€at€the€federal€and€state€claimsÐ À Ðseparately.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àò ò1.€€òòTitle€VIIóó.ó ó€€The€weight€of€authority€supports€the€viewÐ h Ðthat,€under€Title€VII,€the€creation€and€perpetuation€of€a€hostileÐ à0 Ðwork€environment€can€comprise€a€retaliatory€adverse€employmentÐ ŒÜ  Ðaction€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000e„3(a).€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòVon€Guntenóó€v.Ð 8!ˆ" ÐòòMarylandóó,€243€F.3d€858,€864„65€(4th€Cir.€2001);€òòRayóó€v.€òòHendersonóó,Ð ä"4$ Ð217€F.3d€1234,€1244„45€(9th€Cir.€2000);€òòMorrisóó,€201€F.3d€at€791;Ð $à& ÐòòRichardsonóó€v.€òòN.Y.€State€Dep't€of€Corr.€Serv.óó,€180€F.3d€426,€446Ð <&Œ!( Ð(2d€Cir.€1999);€òòGunnellóó€v.€òòUtah€Valley€State€Coll.óó,€152€F.3d€1253,Ð è'8#* Ð1264€(10th€Cir.€1998);€òòWidemanóó€v.€òòWal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€141€F.3dÐ ”)ä$, Ð1453,€1456€(11th€Cir.€1998);€òòKnoxóó€v.€òòIndianaóó,€93€F.3d€1327,€1334„35Ð @+&. Ð(7th€Cir.€1996).€€That€view€has€engendered€a€circuit€split.€€TheÐ ° ÐFifth€Circuit€has€held€that€a€hostile€work€environment€cannotÐ \¬ Ðconstitute€a€retaliatory€adverse€employment€action;€instead,Ð X Ðretaliation€requires€an€"ultimate€employment€decision€.€.€.€such€asÐ ´  Ðhiring,€granting€leave,€discharging,€promoting,€and€compensating."€Ð ` ° ÐòòMatternóó€v.€òòEastman€Kodak€Co.óó,€104€F.3d€702,€707€(5th€Cir.€1997);Ð  \  Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòid.óó€at€709.€€The€Eighth€Circuit€also€requires€an€"ultimateÐ ¸  Ðemployment€decision,"€òòLedergerberóó€v.€òòStangleróó,€122€F.3d€1142,€1144Ð d´  Ð(8th€Cir.€1997),€but€defines€that€term€somewhat€more€elastically,Ð `  Ðòòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòScusaóó€v.€òòNestle€U.S.A.€Co.óó,€181€F.3d€958,€968„69€(8thÐ ¼  ÐCir.€1999).Ð h¸ Ðà ` àAlthough€this€court€has€never€fully€analyzed€theÐ d Ðquestion,€our€case€law€tilts€noticeably€toward€the€majority€view.€Ð À ÐThe€pertinent€decisions€form€a€totem€pole.€€At€the€base€of€the€poleÐ l¼ Ðis€òòWyattóó€v.€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€35€F.3d€13€(1st€Cir.€1994)€(perÐ h Ðcuriam),€where,€in€dictum,€we€cited€a€treatise€for€the€propositionÐ Ä Ðthat€"toleration€of€harassment€by€other€employees"€might€amount€toÐ pÀ  Ðan€adverse€employment€action.€€òòId.óó€at€15„16€(citing€3€Arthur€LarsonÐ !l" Ð&€Lex€K.€Larson,€òòEmployment€Discriminationóó€ðð€87.20€(1994)).€€ThatÐ È"$ Ðled€to€a€series€of€epibolies:€€in€òòHernandez„Torresóó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòIntercontinental€Trading,€Inc.óó,€158€F.3d€43,€47€(1st€Cir.€1998),€weÐ  &p!( Ðparaphrased€the€òòWyattóó€dictum;€in€òòWhiteóó€v.€òòNew€Hampshire€DepartmentÐ Ì'#* Ðof€Correctionsóó,€221€F.3d€254,€262€(1st€Cir.€2000),€we€noted€theÐ x)È$, ÐòòHernandez„Torresóó€paraphrase€with€approbation;€in€òòMarreroóó€v.€òòGoya€ofÐ $+t&. ÐPuerto€Rico,€Inc.óó,€304€F.3d€7,€26€(1st€Cir.€2002),€we€approvinglyÐ ° Ðcited€òòWhiteóó's€reference;€and€in€òòCheóó€v.€òòMassachusetts€BayÐ \¬ ÐTransportation€Authorityóó,€342€F.3d€31,€40€(1st€Cir.€2003),€we€madeÐ X Ða€bow€in€the€direction€of€òòMarreroóó.€€This€totem€pole€is€highlyÐ ´  Ðsuggestive.€€Today,€we€cap€it€off€and€hold€explicitly€that€aÐ ` ° Ðhostile€work€environment,€tolerated€by€the€employer,€is€cognizableÐ  \  Ðas€a€retalitory€adverse€employment€action€for€purposes€of€42€U.S.C.Ð ¸  Ððð€2000e„3(a).€€This€means€that€workplace€harassment,€ifÐ d´  Ðsufficiently€severe€or€pervasive,€may€in€and€of€itself€constituteÐ `  Ðan€adverse€employment€action€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€second€prongÐ ¼  Ðof€the€prima€facie€case€for€Title€VII€retaliation€cases.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThis€conclusion€is€compelled€by€the€statutory€text€andÐ d Ðcomports€with€congressional€intent.€€The€operative€provision€ofÐ À ÐTitle€VII€makes€it€unlawful€"to€discriminate€against€any€individualÐ l¼ Ðwith€respect€to€his€compensation,€terms,€conditions,€or€privilegesÐ h Ðof€employment,€because€of€such€individual's€.€.€.€sex."€€42€U.S.C.Ð Ä Ððð€2000e„2(a)(1).€€Given€Congress's€intention€"to€strike€at€theÐ pÀ  Ðentire€spectrum€of€disparate€treatment€of€men€and€women€inÐ !l" Ðemployment,€which€includes€requiring€people€to€work€in€aÐ È"$ Ðdiscriminatorily€hostile€or€abusive€environment,"€òòHarrisóó,€510€U.S.Ð t$Ä& Ðat€21€(citation€and€internal€quotation€marks€omitted),€it€makesÐ  &p!( Ðsense€to€construe€the€qualifier€(regarding€"compensation,€terms,Ð Ì'#* Ðconditions,€or€privileges€of€employment")€broadly.€€On€that€basis,Ð x)È$, Ðthe€verb€"discriminate,"€as€used€in€section€2000e„2(a)(1),Ð $+t&. Ðlogically€includes€subjecting€a€person€to€a€hostile€workÐ ° Ðenvironment.€€òòSeeóó€òòMorrisóó,€201€F.3d€at€791„92.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àWe€move€next€to€Title€VII's€anti„retaliation€provision.€Ð X ÐThat€provision€directs€an€employer€not€to€discriminate€against€anyÐ ´  Ðemployee€"because€[the€employee]€has€made€a€charge,€testified,Ð ` ° Ðassisted,€or€participated€in€any€manner€in€an€investigation,Ð  \  Ðproceeding,€or€hearing€under€[Title€VII]."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000e„3(a).€Ð ¸  ÐHere,€the€term€"discriminate"€appears€without€the€qualifier.€€AÐ d´  Ðfamiliar€canon€of€construction€teaches€that€"[a]€term€appearing€inÐ `  Ðseveral€places€in€a€statutory€text€is€generally€read€the€same€wayÐ ¼  Ðeach€time€it€appears."€€òòRatzlafóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€510€U.S.€135,€143Ð h¸ Ð(1994).€€We€apply€that€canon€here.€€The€result:€€the€verbÐ d Ð"discriminate"€in€the€anti„retaliation€clause€includes€subjectingÐ À Ða€person€to€a€hostile€work€environment.€€òòSeeóó€òòMorrisóó,€201€F.3d€atÐ l¼ Ð792;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòKnoxóó,€93€F.3d€at€1334€("Nothing€indicates€why€.€.€.Ð h Ðretaliating€against€a€complainant€by€permitting€her€fellowÐ Ä Ðemployees€to€punish€her€for€invoking€her€rights€under€Title€VII€.Ð pÀ  Ð.€.€does€not€fall€within€the€statute.").Ð !l" Ðà ` àOur€interpretation€of€the€statutory€text€is€shared€by€theÐ È"$ ÐEEOC,€which€finds€the€lack€of€any€qualifier€on€the€termÐ t$Ä& Ð"discriminate"€in€the€anti„retaliation€context€to€evince€a€purposeÐ  &p!( Ðto€"prohibit€òòanyóó€discrimination€that€is€reasonably€likely€to€deterÐ Ì'#* Ðprotected€activity."€€òòEEOC€Compl.€Man.óó€(CCH)€ðð€8005,€ðð€8„II.D.3Ð x)È$, Ð(2004).€€This€is€important€because€an€administrative€interpretationÐ $+t&. Ðof€a€federal€statute€by€the€agency€charged€with€its€enforcement,Ð ° Ðwhile€not€controlling€upon€the€courts,€constitutes€an€informedÐ \¬ Ðjudgment€to€which€some€deference€ordinarily€is€due.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòMeritorÐ X ÐSav.€Bankóó€v.€òòVinsonóó,€477€U.S.€57,€65€(1986).Ð ´  Ðà ` àIf€more€were€needed€ð"ð€and€we€doubt€that€it€is€ð"ð€thisÐ ` ° Ðcapacious€reading€of€section€2000e„3(a)€is€consonant€with€itsÐ  \  Ðpurpose€of€"[m]aintaining€unfettered€access€to€statutory€remedialÐ ¸  Ðmechanisms."€€òòRobinsonóó€v.€òòShell€Oil€Co.óó,€519€U.S.€337,€346€(1997).€Ð d´  ÐHarassment€by€coworkers€as€a€punishment€for€undertaking€protectedÐ `  Ðactivity€is€a€paradigmatic€example€of€adverse€treatment€spurred€byÐ ¼  Ðretaliatory€motives€and,€as€such,€is€likely€to€deter€theÐ h¸ Ðcomplaining€party€(or€others)€from€engaging€in€protected€activity.€Ð d ÐòòRayóó,€217€F.3d€at€1245;€òòWidemanóó,€141€F.3d€at€1456.€€Reading€theÐ À Ðstatute€to€provide€a€remedy€for€retaliatory€harassment€thatÐ l¼ Ðexpresses€itself€in€the€form€of€a€hostile€work€environment€thusÐ h Ðfurthers€the€goal€of€ensuring€access€to€the€statute's€remedialÐ Ä Ðâ âmechanisms.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àò ò2.€€òòChapter€151Bóó.ó ó€€As€for€the€state„law€claim,€we€believeÐ ° Ðâ âthat,€were€the€Massachusetts€Supreme€Judicial€Court€(SJC)€squarelyÐ xÈ Ðpresented€with€the€question,€it€would€find€a€retaliatory€hostileÐ $t Ðwork€environment€to€be€an€adverse€employment€action€cognizableÐ Ð  Ðunder€chapter€151B,€ðð€4(4).€€Several€factors€enter€into€thisÐ | Ì Ðdetermination.Ð ( x  Ðà ` àFirst€and€foremost,€the€statute's€anti„discrimination€andÐ Ô$  Ðanti„retaliation€provisions€are€very€similar€to€the€counterpartÐ €Ð  Ðprovisions€contained€in€Title€VII.€€Where€such€linguisticÐ ,|  Ðsimilarity€exists,€the€SJC€frequently€looks€to€federal€courtÐ Ø( Ðinterpretations€of€Title€VII€for€guidance.€€òòSeeóó€òòWheatleyóó€v.€òòAT&TÐ „Ô ÐCo.óó,€636€N.E.2d€265,€268€(Mass.€1994)€("It€is€our€practice€to€applyÐ 0€ ÐFederal€case€law€construing€the€Federal€anti„discriminationÐ Ü, Ðstatutes€in€interpreting€[chapter]€151B.");€òòCollege„Town,€Div.€ofÐ ˆØ ÐInterco,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMCADóó,€508€N.E.2d€587,€591€(Mass.€1987)€(describingÐ 4„ Ðfederal€precedents€as€"helpful").€€We€are,€therefore,€confidentÐ à0 Ðthat€the€SJC,€if€confronted€with€this€precise€question,€would€quiteÐ ŒÜ  Ðlikely€interpret€the€anti„retaliation€provision€of€chapter€151BÐ 8!ˆ" Ðexactly€as€we€have€interpreted€the€counterpart€provision€of€TitleÐ ä"4$ ÐVII.Ð $à& Ðà ` àSecond,€to€the€extent€that€any€ambiguity€lurks€in€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðstatutory€language,€Massachusetts€law€explicitly€directs€that€theÐ è'8#* Ðprovisions€of€chapter€151B€"shall€be€construed€liberally€for€theÐ ”)ä$, Ðaccomplishment€of€its€purposes."€€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€151B,€ðð€9.€Ð @+&. ÐAs€with€Title€VII,€the€purpose€of€the€anti„retaliation€provision€inÐ ° Ðchapter€151B€is€to€allow€parties€to€"seek€redress€for€allegationsÐ \¬ Ðof€discrimination€without€fear€of€retaliation€for€or€interferenceÐ X Ðwith€the€exercise€of€that€right."€€òòSahlióó€v.€òòBull€HN€Info.€Sys.,Ð ´  ÐInc.óó,€774€N.E.2d€1085,€1090€(Mass.€2002).€€Construing€chapterÐ ` ° Ð151B's€text€to€protect€complaining€employees€from€retaliatoryÐ  \  Ðharassment€that€results€in€the€creation€and€perpetuation€of€aÐ ¸  Ðhostile€work€environment€advances€that€purpose.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThird,€although€the€SJC€has€not€spoken€directly€to€theÐ `  Ðsubject,€the€Appeals€Court€has€recognized€a€claim€of€retaliatoryÐ ¼  Ðharassment€based€on€a€hostile€work€environment.€€òòSeeóó€òòCliftonóó,€815Ð h¸ ÐN.E.2d€at€618,€624.€€While€this€holding€is€not€indisputablyÐ d Ðauthoritative€ð"ð€the€highest€court€of€a€state€is,€after€all,€theÐ À Ðfinal€arbiter€of€state„law€questions,€òòAcadia€Ins.€Co.óó€v.€òòMcNeilóó,Ð l¼ Ð116€F.3d€599,€604€(1st€Cir.€1997)ò òó ó€ð"ð€the€decision€of€an€intermediateÐ h Ðappellate€court€of€the€state€generally€constitutes€a€reliable€pieceÐ Ä Ðof€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòWestóó€v.€òòATCT€Co.óó,€311€U.S.€223,€237€(1940);Ð pÀ  ÐòòFortinióó€v.€òòMurphyóó,€257€F.3d€39,€49€(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòLosaccoóó€v.€òòF.D.Ð !l" ÐRich€Constr.€Co.óó,€992€F.2d€382,€384€(1st€Cir.€1993).€€This€evidenceÐ È"$ Ðseems€all€the€more€compelling€in€this€case€because€the€MCAD€ð"ð€whoseÐ t$Ä& Ðdecisions€construing€chapter€151B€are€ceded€some€deference€by€theÐ  &p!( ÐSJC,€òòCuddyeróó,€750€N.E.2d€at€938€ð"ð€has€interpreted€chapter€151B'sÐ Ì'#* Ðanti„retaliation€language€to€include€retaliatory€harassmentÐ x)È$, Ðculminating€in€a€hostile€work€environment.€€òòSeeóó€òòMCAD€SexualÐ $+t&. ÐHarassment€in€the€Workplace€Guidelinesóó€IX.B€(2002)€("An€employerÐ ° Ðtakes€adverse€action€under€ðð€4(4)€when€it€materially€disadvantagesÐ \¬ Ðthe€complainant€with€regard€to€any€of€the€terms€or€conditions€ofÐ X Ðher€employment.€€The€term€'adverse€action'€can€encompass€.€.€.Ð ´  Ðhostile€or€abusive€workplace€treatment.");€òòWareingóó€v.€òòNew€BedfordÐ ` ° ÐSch.€Dep'tóó,€No.€99„BEM„3363,€2004€WL€2361016,€at€*8€(MCAD€Oct.€6,Ð  \  Ð2004)€("Retaliation€may€.€.€.€take€the€form€of€hostile€or€abusiveÐ ¸  Ðworkplace€treatment.).Ð d´  Ðà ` àTo€say€more€on€this€topic€would€be€to€paint€the€lily.€Ð `  ÐFor€the€reasons€elucidated€above,€we€hold€that,€under€MassachusettsÐ ¼  Ðlaw€as€under€Title€VII,€subjecting€an€employee€to€a€hostile€workÐ h¸ Ðenvironment€in€retaliation€for€protected€activity€constitutes€anÐ d Ðadverse€employment€action€(and,€thus,€triggers€the€statutoryÐ À Ðprophylaxis).Ð l¼ ÐÓÓò òÓ  ÓD.€€òòRetaliatory€Hostile€Work€Environment:€€Sufficiency€of€Proofóó.ó óÐ h ÐÓLÛÓÓaÛÓà ` àÌà ` àWe€have€established€that,€as€a€theoretical€matter,Ð ¨ø Ðsubjecting€a€party€to€a€hostile€work€environment€in€retaliation€forÐ T ¤! Ðprotected€activity€may€be€actionable€under€both€Title€VII€andÐ "P# Ðchapter€151B.€€That€poses€the€question€whether€the€evidence€in€thisÐ ¬#ü% Ðcase,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiff,€òòGarsideóó,Ð X%¨ ' Ð895€F.2d€at€48,€shows€that€a€hostile€work€environment€existed.€€WeÐ 'T") Ðturn€to€that€question.Ð °($+ Ðà ` àò ò1.€€òòElements€of€the€Cause€of€Actionóó.ó ó€€An€allegedlyÐ \*¬%- Ðretaliatory€act€must€rise€to€some€level€of€substantiality€before€itÐ $,t'/ Ðcan€be€actionable.€€òòWidemanóó,€141€F.3d€at€1456;€òòMacCormackóó€v.€òòBostonÐ ° ÐEdison€Co.óó,€672€N.E.2d€1,€7„8€(Mass.€1996).€€The€hostile€workÐ \¬ Ðenvironment€doctrine,€as€developed€in€the€anti„discriminationÐ X Ðjurisprudence€of€Title€VII,€embodies€that€prerequisite.Ð ´  Ðà ` àIn€order€to€prove€a€hostile€work€environment,€a€plaintiffÐ ` ° Ðmust€show€that€she€was€subjected€to€severe€or€pervasive€harassmentÐ  \  Ðthat€materially€altered€the€conditions€of€her€employment.€Ð ¸  ÐòòFaragheróó,òòóó€524€U.S.€at€786.€€The€harassment€must€be€"objectively€andÐ d´  Ðsubjectively€offensive,€one€that€a€reasonable€person€would€findÐ `  Ðhostile€or€abusive,€and€one€that€the€victim€in€fact€did€perceive€toÐ ¼  Ðbe€so."€€òòId.óó€at€787.€€In€determining€whether€a€reasonable€personÐ h¸ Ðwould€find€particular€conduct€hostile€or€abusive,€a€court€must€mullÐ d Ðthe€totality€of€the€circumstances,€including€factors€such€as€theÐ À Ð"frequency€of€the€discriminatory€conduct;€its€severity;€whether€itÐ l¼ Ðis€physically€threatening€or€humiliating,€or€a€mere€offensiveÐ h Ðutterance;€and€whether€it€unreasonably€interferes€with€anÐ Ä Ðemployee's€work€performance."€€òòId.óó€at€787„88€(quoting€òòHarrisóó,€510Ð pÀ  ÐU.S.€at€23).€€The€thrust€of€this€inquiry€is€to€distinguish€betweenÐ !l" Ðthe€ordinary,€if€occasionally€unpleasant,€vicissitudes€of€theÐ È"$ Ðworkplace€and€actual€harassment.€€òòId.óó€at€788.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àThis€framework€is€readily€transferable€to€the€retaliatoryÐ  &p!( Ðharassment€context.€€On€the€one€hand,€if€protected€activity€leadsÐ Ì'#* Ðonly€to€commonplace€indignities€typical€of€the€workplace€(such€asÐ x)È$, Ðtepid€jokes,€teasing,€or€aloofness),€a€reasonable€person€would€notÐ $+t&. Ðbe€deterred€from€such€activity.€€After€all,€an€employee€reasonablyÐ ° Ðcan€expect€to€encounter€such€tribulations€even€if€she€eschews€anyÐ \¬ Ðinvolvement€in€protected€activity.€€On€the€other€hand,€severe€orÐ X Ðpervasive€harassment€in€retaliation€for€engaging€in€protectedÐ ´  Ðactivity€threatens€to€deter€due€enforcement€of€the€rights€conferredÐ ` ° Ðby€statutes€such€as€Title€VII€and€chapter€151B.Ð  \  Ðà ` àAlong€this€continuum,€rudeness€or€ostracism,€standingÐ ¸  Ðalone,€usually€is€not€enough€to€support€a€hostile€work€environmentÐ d´  Ðclaim.€€òòSeeóó€òòManattóó€v.€òòBank€of€Am.óó,€339€F.3d€792,€803€(9th€Cir.Ð `  Ð2003);€òòGagnonóó€v.€òòSprint€Corp.óó,€284€F.3d€839,€850€(8th€Cir.€2002);Ð ¼  Ðòòcf.óó€òòSimasóó€v.€òòFirst€Citizens'€Fed.€Credit€Unionóó,€170€F.3d€37,€52Ð h¸ Ðn.12€(1st€Cir.€1999)€(noting,€in€related€context,€that€"socialÐ d Ðostracism€alone€is€rarely€actionable").€€The€anti„discriminationÐ À Ðlaws€were€not€enacted€to€create€or€enforce€a€"general€civilityÐ l¼ Ðcode."€€òòOncaleóó€v.€òòSundowner€Offshore€Servs.,€Inc.óó,€523€U.S.€75,€80Ð h Ð(1998).€€So€too€the€anti„retaliation€laws.Ð Ä Ðà ` àò ò2.€€òòApplying€the€Requirementsóó.ó ó€€Having€sketched€theÐ pÀ  Ðcontours€of€retaliatory€hostile€work€environments€in€the€Title€VIIÐ 8!ˆ" Ðand€chapter€151B€milieus,€we€reach€the€central€question€presentedÐ ä"4$ Ðin€this€appeal:€€viewing€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€in€theÐ $à& Ðlight€most€flattering€to€the€plaintiff,€is€the€evidence€ofÐ <&Œ!( Ðretaliatory€harassment€adequate€to€allow€a€reasonable€jury€to€findÐ è'8#* Ðâ âthat€she€was€confronted€by€a€hostile€work€environment?Ð ”)ä$, Ðà ` àAt€the€outset,€we€take€note€of€a€unique€difficulty€posedÐ ° Ðâ âby€allegations€of€retaliatory€harassment.€€When€dealing€withÐ \¬ Ðdiscriminatory€harassment€(e.g.,€harassment€based€on€gender,€race,Ð X Ðor€the€like),€there€is€seldom,€if€ever,€a€defensible€purpose€behindÐ ´  Ðthe€injurious€actions.€€The€only€question€is€whether€the€bad€acts,Ð ` ° Ðtaken€in€the€aggregate,€are€sufficiently€severe€or€pervasive€toÐ  \  Ðconstitute€actionable€harassment.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCardenasóó€v.€òòMasseyóó,Ð ¸  Ð269€F.3d€251,€261„62€(3d€Cir.€2001);€òòJohnsonóó€v.€òòCity€of€Fort€Wayneóó,Ð d´  Ð91€F.3d€922,€932€(7th€Cir.€1996).Ð `  Ðà ` àRetaliatory€harassment,€however,€requires€a€more€nuancedÐ ¼  Ðanalysis.€€The€very€act€of€filing€a€charge€against€a€coworker€willÐ h¸ Ðinvariably€cause€tension€and€result€in€a€less€agreeable€workplace.€Ð d ÐòòVon€Guntenóó,€243€F.3d€at€870.€€The€target€of€the€complaint€likelyÐ À Ðwill€have€coworker„friends€who€come€to€his€defense,€while€otherÐ l¼ Ðcoworkers€will€seek€to€steer€clear€of€trouble€by€avoiding€both€theÐ h Ðcomplainant€and€the€target.€€Although€admittedly€a€source€ofÐ Ä Ðunpleasantness€in€the€workplace,€such€behavior€should€not€be€seenÐ pÀ  Ðas€contributing€to€a€retaliatory€hostile€work€environment.€€òòId.óó€Ð !l" ÐAfter€all,€there€is€nothing€inherently€wrong€either€with€supportingÐ È"$ Ða€friend€or€with€striving€to€avoid€controversy.€€We€think€itÐ t$Ä& Ðfollows€that€those€actions€that€are€hurtful€to€a€complainant€onlyÐ  &p!( Ðbecause€coworkers€do€not€take€her€side€in€a€work„related€disputeÐ Ì'#* Ðmay€not€be€considered€as€contributing€to€a€retaliatory€hostile€workÐ x)È$, Ðenvironment.€€It€is€only€those€actions,€directed€at€a€complainant,Ð $+t&. Ðthat€stem€from€a€retaliatory€animus€which€may€be€factored€into€theÐ ° Ðhostile€work€environment€calculus.€Ð \¬ Ðà ` àEven€with€these€nuances€in€mind,€we€conclude€that€theÐ X Ðevidence€in€this€case,€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ´  Ðplaintiff,€would€permit€ð"ð€although€certainly€not€compel€ð"ð€aÐ ` ° Ðreasonable€jury€to€find€that€the€plaintiff€was€subjected€to€aÐ  \  Ðretaliation„based€hostile€work€environment.€€In€reaching€thisÐ ¸  Ðconclusion,€we€take€into€account€the€relative€ubiquity€of€theÐ d´  Ðretaliatory€conduct,€its€severity,€its€natural€tendency€toÐ `  Ðhumiliate€(and,€on€occasion,€physically€threaten)€a€reasonableÐ ¼  Ðperson,€and€its€capacity€to€interfere€with€the€plaintiff's€workÐ h¸ Ðperformance.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarrisóó,€510€U.S.€at€23.Ð d Ðà ` àIn€the€months€immediately€following€the€plaintiff'sÐ À Ðinitial€series€of€complaints€about€Ortiz's€actions,€she€wasÐ l¼ Ðsubjected€to€a€steady€stream€of€abuse.€€Much€of€this€wasÐ h Ðsignificant€and€was€of€a€kind€that€courts€historically€have€foundÐ Ä Ðpersuasive€as€evidence€of€a€hostile€work€environment.€€She€wasÐ pÀ  Ðfalsely€accused€of€misconduct€(DiGirolamo€levied€a€baseless€chargeÐ !l" Ðagainst€her€in€the€tampon„throwing€incident)€ð"ð€and€the€case€lawÐ È"$ Ðrecognizes€that€false€accusations€of€misconduct€can€contribute€toÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€creation€of€a€hostile€work€environment.€€òòSeeóó€òòRayóó,€217€F.3d€atÐ  &p!( Ð1245;€òòAvilesóó€v.€òòCornell€Forge€Co.óó,€183€F.3d€598,€606€(7th€Cir.Ð Ì'#* Ð1999).€€DiGirolamo€also€interfered€with€the€plaintiff's€workingÐ x)È$, Ðconditions€by€falsely€informing€her€that€she€was€required€to€takeÐ $+t&. Ðher€dinner€breaks€alone€ð"ð€and€"work€sabotage,€exclusion,€[and]Ð ° Ðdenial€of€support"€also€may€contribute€to€the€creation€of€a€hostileÐ \¬ Ðwork€environment.€€òòO'Rourkeóó,€235€F.3d€at€730.€€The€harassingÐ X Ðinsults€directed€at€the€plaintiff€are€likewise€entitled€to€someÐ ´  Ðweight€in€the€decisional€calculus.€€òòSeeóó€òòBoldenóó€v.€òòPRC€Inc.óó,€43€F.3dÐ ` ° Ð545,€551€(10th€Cir.€1994)€(noting€that€even€infrequent€harassingÐ  \  Ðinsults€should€be€considered,€along€with€other€instances€ofÐ ¸  Ðharassment).€€So€too€the€taunting€of€the€plaintiff€with€theÐ d´  Ðcollection€on€behalf€of€Ortiz.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòMarreroóó,€304€F.3d€at€26€(findingÐ `  Ðthat€taunting€plaintiff€in€relation€to€her€filing€of€an€EEOCÐ ¼  Ðcomplaint€was€evidence€of€retaliatory€harassment);€òòcf.óó€òòOncaleóó,€523Ð h¸ ÐU.S.€at€80€(noting€that€open€and€direct€hostility€clearly€based€onÐ d Ðprotected€status€is€evidence€of€hostile€work€environment).Ð À Ðà ` àGilardi's€continued€tormenting€of€the€plaintiff€is€alsoÐ l¼ Ðrelevant.€€Soon€after€the€collection€incident,€Gilardi€interferedÐ h Ðwith€the€plaintiff's€ability€to€work€by€leaving€her€out€in€the€coldÐ Ä Ð(literally,€not€figuratively).€€This€conduct€may€be€seen€as€havingÐ pÀ  Ðcontributed€to€the€creation€of€a€hostile€work€environment.€€òòSeeóóÐ !l" ÐòòGorskióó€v.€òòN.H.€Dep't€of€Corr.óó,€290€F.3d€466,€472€(1st€Cir.€2002);Ð ° ÐòòO'Rourkeóó,€235€F.3d€at€730.€€Gilardi€later€placed€the€plaintiff€atÐ \¬ Ðrisk€of€physical€harm€by€coming€close€to€striking€her€with€a€van;Ð X Ðif€that€was€intentional€(and,€for€now,€we€must€credit€theÐ ´  Ðplaintiff's€averment€that€it€was),€it€is€a€cogent€indicator€of€anÐ ` ° Ðadverse€change€in€the€conditions€of€the€plaintiff's€employment.€Ð  \  ÐòòCf.óó€òòWhiteóó€v.€òòBFI€Waste€Servs.,€LLCóó,€375€F.3d€288,€298€n.6€(4th€Cir.Ð ¸  Ð2004)€(noting€that€"the€presence€of€physical€threats€undeniablyÐ d´  Ðstrengthens€a€hostile€work€environment€claim");€òòRaniolaóó€v.€òòBrattonóó,Ð `  Ð243€F.3d€610,€621€(2d€Cir.€2001)€(similar).€€To€cinch€matters,€theÐ ¼  Ðplaintiff€offered€evidence€that€these€incidents€contributed€toÐ h¸ Ðphysical€and€psychological€problems€that€required€treatment,€thusÐ d Ðunderscoring€the€negative€effect€on€her€work€performance.Ð À Ðà ` àOf€course,€no€pat€formula€exists€for€determining€withÐ l¼ Ðcertainty€whether€the€sum€of€harassing€workplace€incidents€rises€toÐ h Ðthe€level€of€an€actionable€hostile€work€environment.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarrisóó,Ð Ä Ð510€U.S.€at€22.€€Such€a€determination€requires€the€trier€of€fact€toÐ pÀ  Ðassess€the€matter€on€a€case„by„case€basis,€weighing€the€totality€ofÐ !l" Ðthe€circumstances.€€òòLipsettóó€v.€òòUniv.€of€P.R.óó,€864€F.2d€881,€898€&Ð È"$ Ðn.18€(1st€Cir.€1988).€€Our€function€is€one€of€screening,€that€is,Ð t$Ä& Ðto€determine€whether,€on€particular€facts,€a€reasonable€jury€couldÐ  &p!( Ðreach€such€a€conclusion.€€òòRivera„Rodrguezóó€v.€òòFrito€Lay€SnacksÐ Ì'#* ÐCaribbeanóó,€265€F.3d€15,€24€(1st€Cir.€2001).€€Taking€the€aggregateÐ x)È$, Ðfacts€of€record€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiff,€weÐ $+t&. Ðbelieve€that€a€jury€rationally€could€find€that€the€plaintiff€wasÐ ° Ðsubjected€to€a€hostile€work€environment€arising€out€of€retaliationÐ \¬ Ðfor€her€complaint€against€a€popular€coworker.ò òó óÐ X Ðà@˜ ˜ ìàò òE.€€òòThe€Liability€Standardóó.ó óˆÐ ´  Ðà ` àThis€conclusion€takes€us€to€the€liability€standard.€€InÐ | Ì Ðimporting€the€hostile€work€environment€doctrine€into€the€anti„Ð ( x  Ðretaliation€context,€courts€are€left€to€draw€the€standards€forÐ Ô$  Ðemployer€liability€from€the€case€law€involving€hostile€workÐ €Ð  Ðenvironments€in€the€anti„discrimination€context.€€The€Supreme€CourtÐ ,|  Ðhas€divided€the€universe€of€employer€liability€along€a€line€thatÐ Ø( Ðseparates€supervisors€from€non„supervisors.€€When€a€supervisorÐ „Ô Ðcreates€a€hostile€work€environment,€the€employer€is€vicariouslyÐ 0€ Ðliable€for€it,€subject,€however,€to€a€possible€affirmative€defense.€Ð Ü, ÐòòSeeóó€òòBurlington€Indus.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòEllerthóó,€524€U.S.€742,€765€(1998);Ð ˆØ ÐòòFaragheróó,€524€U.S.€at€807„08.Ð 4„ Ðà ` àThis€defense,€familiarly€known€as€the€òòFaragher/EllerthóóÐ à0 Ðdefense,€€consists€of€two€elements€which,€if€proven,€permit€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðemployer€to€avoid€liability.€€First,€the€employer€must€show€that€itÐ 8!ˆ" Ð"exercised€reasonable€care€to€prevent€and€correct€promptly"€theÐ ä"4$ Ðharassment.€€òòEllerthóó,€524€U.S.€at€765.€€Second,€the€employer€mustÐ $à& Ðshow€that€the€employee€"unreasonably€failed€to€take€advantage€ofÐ <&Œ!( Ðany€preventive€or€corrective€opportunities€provided€by€the€employerÐ è'8#* Ðâ âor€to€avoid€harm€otherwise."€€òòId.óóÐ ”)ä$, Ðà ` àAs€with€Title€VII,€chapter€151B€makes€employersÐ ° Ðâ âvicariously€liable€for€hostile€work€environments€created€byÐ \¬ Ðsupervisors.€€òòCollege„Townóó,€508€N.E.2d€at€592.€€Unlike€Title€VII,Ð X Ðhowever,€chapter€151B€does€not€afford€employers€any€affirmativeÐ ´  Ðdefenses€to€liability.€€Based€on€the€legislative€mandate€thatÐ ` ° Ðchapter€151B€must€be€construed€liberally€to€effectuate€itsÐ  \  Ðpurposes,€òòseeóó€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€151B,€ðð€9,€the€SJC€has€endorsedÐ ¸  Ða€rule€that€holds€employers€strictly€liable€for€supervisoryÐ d´  Ðharassment.€€òòSeeóó€òòCollege„Townóó,€508€N.E.2d€at€591„94€(rejecting€aÐ `  Ð"reasonable€care"€standard€as€a€defense€to€a€hostile€workÐ ¼  Ðenvironment€claim);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBlockelóó€v.€òòJ.C.€Penney€Co.óó,€337€F.3dÐ h¸ Ð17,€28€n.3€(1st€Cir.€2003)€(noting€that€the€òòFaragher/EllerthóóÐ d Ðdefense€does€not€apply€to€chapter€151B€actions).€€Because€theÐ À Ðreasoning€of€òòCollege„Townóó€belies€any€meaningful€distinction€betweenÐ l¼ Ðdiscriminatory€harassment€and€retaliatory€harassment€whereÐ h Ðsupervisors€are€concerned,€we€conclude€that€no€òòFaragher/EllerthóóÐ Ä Ðtype€of€affirmative€defense€is€available€under€chapter€151B€to€anÐ pÀ  Ðemployer€whose€supervisors€create€a€retaliatory€hostile€workÐ !l" Ðenvironment.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àWhen€coworkers,€rather€than€supervisors,€are€responsibleÐ t$Ä& Ðfor€the€creation€and€perpetuation€of€a€hostile€work€environment,Ð  &p!( ÐTitle€VII€and€chapter€151B€seem€essentially€coterminous€as€theyÐ Ì'#* Ðrelate€to€employer€liability.€€Notwithstanding€the€absence€of€aÐ x)È$, Ðcontrolling€Supreme€Court€precedent,€several€federal€courts,Ð $+t&. Ðincluding€this€court,€have€held€that,€in€such€situations,€anÐ ° Ðemployer€can€only€be€liable€if€the€harassment€is€causally€connectedÐ \¬ Ðto€some€negligence€on€the€employer's€part.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWyningeróó€v.Ð X ÐòòNew€Venture€Gear,€Inc.óó,€361€F.3d€965,€976€(7th€Cir.€2004);Ð ´  ÐòòOcheltreeóó€v.€òòScollon€Prods.,€Inc.óó,€335€F.3d€325,€333„34€(4th€Cir.Ð ` ° Ð2003);€òòCrowleyóó€v.€òòL.L.€Bean,€Inc.óó,€303€F.3d€387,€401€(1st€Cir.Ð  \  Ð2002).€€Typically,€this€involves€a€showing€that€the€employer€knewÐ ¸  Ðor€should€have€known€about€the€harassment,€yet€failed€to€takeÐ d´  Ðprompt€action€to€stop€it.€€òòSeeóó€òòCrowleyóó,€303€F.3d€at€401.€Ð `  ÐSimilarly,€under€chapter€151B,€employer€liability€for€coworkerÐ ¼  Ðharassment€requires€a€showing€that€the€employer€knew€or€should€haveÐ h¸ Ðknown€about€the€harassment,€yet€failed€to€halt€it.€€òòMessinaóó€v.Ð d ÐòòAraserve,€Inc.óó,€906€F.€Supp.€34,€37„38€(D.€Mass.€1995)€(discussingÐ À ÐMassachusetts€law);€òòCollege„Townóó,€508€N.E.2d€at€593.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àAt€the€summary€judgment€stage,€these€determinations€areÐ h Ðcomplicated.€€The€question€of€whether€an€employee€is€a€supervisorÐ Ä Ðin€the€relevant€sense€is€itself€factual€in€nature.€€òòHrobowskióó€v.Ð pÀ  ÐòòWorthington€Steel€Co.óó,€358€F.3d€473,€478€(7th€Cir.€2004).€€Here,Ð !l" Ðthe€lower€court€found€only€coworker€harassment;€it€declared€thatÐ È"$ Ðthe€evidence€showed€that€the€retaliation€had€been€undertaken€byÐ t$Ä& Ð"subordinate€officials,€none€of€whom€had€control€over€terms€andÐ  &p!( Ðconditions€of€[the€plaintiff's]€employment."Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€district€court's€skepticism€about€the€claimedÐ x)È$, Ðsupervisory€status€of€some€of€the€harassers€seems€well„founded.€Ð $+t&. ÐThe€key€to€determining€supervisory€status€is€the€degree€ofÐ ° Ðauthority€possessed€by€the€putative€supervisor.€€òòJoensóó€v.€òòJohnÐ \¬ ÐMorrell€&€Co.óó,€354€F.3d€938,€940€(8th€Cir.€2004);€òòParkinsóó€v.€òòCivilÐ X ÐConstructors€of€Ill.,€Inc.óó,€163€F.3d€1027,€1033€(7th€Cir.€1998).€Ð ´  ÐThus,€courts€must€distinguish€"employees€who€are€supervisors€merelyÐ ` ° Ðas€a€function€of€nomenclature€from€those€who€are€entrusted€withÐ  \  Ðactual€supervisory€powers."€€òòParkinsóó,€163€F.3d€at€1033;€òòaccordóóÐ ¸  ÐòòMikelsóó€v.€òòCity€of€Durhamóó,€183€F.3d€323,€334€(4th€Cir.€1999).€Ð d´  ÐHaving€in€mind€both€common€law€agency€principles€and€the€purposesÐ `  Ðof€the€anti„discrimination€and€anti„retaliation€laws,€we€agree€withÐ ¼  Ðthe€Seventh€Circuit€that€"the€essence€of€supervisory€status€is€theÐ h¸ Ðauthority€to€affect€the€terms€and€conditions€of€the€victim'sÐ d Ðemployment."€€òòParkinsóó,€163€F.3d€at€1034.€€This€authority€"primarilyÐ À Ðconsists€of€the€power€to€hire,€fire,€demote,€promote,€transfer,€orÐ l¼ Ðdiscipline€an€employee."€€òòId.óó€at€1034.€€Without€some€modicum€ofÐ h Ðthis€authority,€a€harasser€cannot€qualify€as€a€supervisor€forÐ Ä Ðpurposes€of€imputing€vicarious€liability€to€the€employer€in€a€TitleÐ pÀ  ÐVII€case,€but,€rather,€should€be€regarded€as€an€ordinary€coworker.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р!l" ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€1033„34.€€We€think€that€the€same€standard€applies€underÐ È"$ Ðchapter€151B.€€òòSeeóó€òòCollege„Townóó,€508€N.E.2d€at€593€(observing€thatÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€power€wielded€by€a€harassing€supervisor€may€range€fromÐ ° Ð"discharge€to€assignment€of€work,€particularly€exacting€scrutiny,Ð \¬ Ðor€refusal€to€protect€the€employee€from€coworker€harassment").Ð X Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€the€plaintiff€has€not€presented€factsÐ ´  Ðsufficient€to€show€that€she€was€harassed€at€the€hands€of€personsÐ ` ° Ðwho€qualify€as€supervisors.€€The€deposition€of€Irene€LandryÐ  \  Ðprovides€the€clearest€evidence€of€the€organizational€structure€ofÐ ¸  Ðthe€workplace.€€The€parking€enforcement€officers€are€on€the€lowestÐ d´  Ðrung€of€the€ladder.€€On€the€next€rung€are€the€shift€supervisors,Ð `  Ðwho€drive€the€parking€enforcement€officers€to€their€assigned€routesÐ ¼  Ðand€pick€them€up.€€The€third€rung€is€occupied€by€more€seniorÐ h¸ Ðsupervisors,€(each€of€whom€holds€the€title€"senior€supervisor€II").€Ð d ÐThe€functions€of€these€individuals€include€dealing€with€personnelÐ À Ðproblems.€€During€the€time€in€question,€Landry€held€the€position€ofÐ l¼ Ðsenior€supervisor€II.€€She€reported€to€Moccia,€a€higher„levelÐ h Ðofficial€who€held€the€title€of€senior€supervisor€of€parkingÐ Ä Ðenforcement.€€Moccia€had€authority€to€handle€a€wide€variety€ofÐ pÀ  Ðemployee€issues€and€complaints.Ð !l" Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€uses€the€word€"supervisor"Ð È"$ Ðindiscriminately,€referring€to€people€on€the€second,€third,€andÐ t$Ä& Ðfourth€rungs€as€"supervisors"€and€making€no€distinctions€amongÐ  &p!( Ðthem.€€That€approach€elevates€nomenclature€over€actual€authority.€Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âWhen€we€shift€the€focus€to€those€persons€whose€actual€authorityÐ x)È$, Ðmade€them€supervisors€in€the€relevant€sense,€a€different€pictureÐ ° Ðemerges.€€Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àLandry€and€Moccia€each€appear€to€have€possessed€theÐ X Ðrequisite€authority,€but€neither€of€them€were€guilty€of€anyÐ ´  Ðretaliatory€harassment.€€The€only€two€"supervisors"€whose€actionsÐ ` ° Ðrationally€can€be€said€to€have€contributed€to€the€hostile€workÐ  \  Ðenvironment€are€Gilardi€and€DiGirolamo.€€Gilardi€was€a€second„rungÐ ¸  Ðshift€supervisor,€and€DiGirolamo's€level€of€authority€seems€noÐ d´  Ðgreater€(the€record€only€permits€us€to€speculate€on€this€point,€andÐ `  Ðthe€lack€of€proof€counts€against€the€plaintiff).€€The€plaintiff€hasÐ ¼  Ðpresented€us€with€no€evidence€that€either€woman€had€the€power€toÐ h¸ Ðterminate,€discipline,€or€otherwise€affect€the€terms€and€conditionsÐ d Ðof€her€employment.€€In€the€absence€of€such€evidence,€the€cityÐ À Ðcannot€be€held€vicariously€responsible€for€their€harassment.ò òó óÐ l¼ Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff's€claim€thus€reduces€to€one€of€coworkerÐ h Ðharassment.€€The€viability€of€that€claim€depends€on€whether€thereÐ Ä Ðis€sufficient€evidence€to€permit€a€finding€that€the€employer€knewÐ pÀ  Ðor€should€have€known€about€the€hostile€work€environment,€yet€failedÐ !l" Ðto€stop€it.€€We€conclude€that€sufficient€evidence€exists.€Ð È"$ ÐPlaintiff€complained€of€the€harassment€to€two€senior€supervisorsÐ t$Ä& Ð(Landry€and€Moccia).€€Landry€did€not€deal€with€the€plaintiff'sÐ  &p!( Ðcomplaints€at€all€and€Moccia,€rather€than€rectifying€the€situation,Ð Ì'#* Ðspeculated€that€the€harassment€would€likely€become€"ten€timesÐ x)È$, Ðworse"€with€the€plaintiff's€recent€shift€change.€€Moreover,€theÐ $+t&. Ðdeputy€commissioner€was€aware€of€the€harassment,€but€did€nothing€toÐ ° Ðdispel€it.€€Since€Landry,€Moccia,€and€the€deputy€commissioner€wereÐ \¬ Ðappropriate€recipients€of€the€plaintiff's€complaints,€there€isÐ X Ðenough€evidence€to€allow€a€finding€of€actual€notice€on€the€city'sÐ ´  Ðpart.€€òòSeeóó€òòCrowleyóó,€303€F.3d€at€403;€òòBredaóó€v.€òòWolf€Camera€&€Videoóó,Ð ` ° Ð222€F.3d€886,€889€(11th€Cir.€2000).Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€city's€only€rejoinder€is€that€the€supervisorsÐ ¸  Ðresponded€to€the€plaintiff's€allegations€in€an€appropriate€manner.€Ð d´  ÐAt€best,€this€presents€a€factual€dispute€that€is€not€amenable€toÐ `  Ðresolution€on€summary€judgment.€€Consequently,€there€is€aÐ ¼  Ðtrialworthy€issue€as€to€whether€the€city€was€negligent€in€notÐ h¸ Ðputting€a€stop€to€the€harassment.Ð d Ðà@È È ìàò òF.€€òòSexual€Harassment€Under€Title€VIIóó.ó ó€ˆÐ À Ðà ` àThis€brings€us€to€the€plaintiff's€claim€that€Ortiz'sÐ ˆØ Ðassault€subjected€her€to€a€hostile€work€environment€based€on€herÐ 4„ Ðsex.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Even€if€the€assault€was€sufficient,€in€and€of€itself,€toÐ à0 Ðcreate€a€hostile€work€environment€ð"ð€a€proposition€that€we€regard€asÐ ŒÜ  Ðhighly€dubious€ð"ð€the€plaintiff€cannot€prevail.€€Though€she€refersÐ 8!ˆ" Ðto€Ortiz€as€her€"supervisor,"€the€record€contains€a€paucity€ofÐ ä"4$ Ðevidence€about€his€job€description€and€authority.€€That€which€doesÐ $à& Ðappear€indicates€that€Ortiz,€like€Gilardi,€was€merely€a€second„rungÐ <&Œ!( Ðshift€supervisor.€€As€the€plaintiff€provided€no€evidence€that€suchÐ è'8#* Ðan€employee€had€the€authority€to€hire,€fire,€or€otherwise€dictateÐ ° Ðthe€terms€and€conditions€of€employment,€vicarious€liability€is€offÐ \¬ Ðthe€table.€€It€follows€that€the€plaintiff€can€survive€summaryÐ X Ðjudgment€only€if€she€can€show€that€a€rational€jury€could€find€theÐ ´  Ðcity€negligent€because€it€knew€or€should€have€known€of€theÐ ` ° Ðharassment€yet€failed€to€take€prompt€action€to€stop€it.€€òòCrowleyóó,Ð  \  Ð303€F.3d€at€401.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiff€cannot€carry€this€burden.€€There€is€noÐ d´  Ðevidence€of€any€prior€misconduct€on€Ortiz's€part.€€The€first€thatÐ `  Ðthe€city€knew€(or€could€have€known)€about€his€assaultive€demeanorÐ ¼  Ðwas€when€it€received€the€initial€report€of€the€attack.€€TheÐ h¸ Ðundisputed€evidence€shows€that€a€mere€seven€days€elapsed€betweenÐ d Ðthe€time€of€the€assault€and€the€commencement€of€disciplinaryÐ À Ðproceedings€(which€began€with€Ortiz's€immediate€suspension€andÐ l¼ Ðculminated€in€his€discharge).€€Between€the€assault€and€theÐ h Ðsuspension,€the€plaintiff€says€that€she€"encountered"€Ortiz€in€theÐ Ä Ðworkplace,€but€there€is€no€evidence€that€she€was€forced€to€workÐ pÀ  Ðwith€him€or€was€exposed€to€further€harassment€by€him.€€While€weÐ !l" Ðleave€open€the€possibility€that,€under€certain€extremeÐ È"$ Ðcircumstances,€a€delay€of€seven€days€in€separating€a€harasser€andÐ t$Ä& Ðhis€victim€might€evince€negligence,€there€is€nothing€to€indicateÐ  &p!( Ðthat€the€city€acted€here€in€a€dilatory€manner.€€On€this€record,€aÐ Ì'#* Ðrational€jury€could€only€conclude€that,€as€to€the€Title€VII€sexualÐ x)È$, Ðharassment€claim,€the€city€acted€in€a€professional€and€appropriateÐ $+t&. Ðmanner€to€resolve€the€problem.€€No€more€was€exigible.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð ° ÐòòReedóó€v.€òòMBNA€Mktg.€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€333€F.3d€27,€34„35€(1st€Cir.€2003)Ð \¬ Ð(noting€that€investigation€of€sexual€assault€by€employer,€quicklyÐ X Ðleading€to€malefactor's€termination,€indicates€reasonable€care€onÐ ´  Ðbehalf€of€employer).Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThat€ends€this€aspect€of€the€matter.€€One€of€the€mainÐ  \  Ðpurposes€of€Title€VII€is€to€encourage€proactive€resolution€ofÐ ¸  Ðworkplace€harassment.€€We€would€undermine€that€purpose€were€we€toÐ d´  Ðsubject€the€city€to€sexual€harassment€liability€despite€its€promptÐ `  Ðand€effective€action€in€investigating€the€incident€and€removing€theÐ ¼  Ðperpetrator€from€the€workplace.Ð h¸ Ðò òIII.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ d Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€To€recapitulate,€we€hold€that€theÐ Ü, Ðplaintiff€has€presented€sufficient€evidence€to€survive€summaryÐ ˆØ Ðjudgment€on€her€retaliatory€harassment€claims€under€Title€VII€andÐ 4„ Ðchapter€151B.€€As€to€her€sexual€harassment€claims,€however,€weÐ à0 Ðreach€a€different€conclusion.€€Her€chapter€151B€claim€is€time„Ð ŒÜ  Ðbarred€and€her€Title€VII€claim€is€foreclosed€by€her€failure€toÐ 8!ˆ" Ðpresent€a€trialworthy€issue€about€whether€the€city€was€negligent€inÐ ä"4$ Ðits€handling€of€the€Ortiz€situation.Ð $à& ÐÌà ` àò òòòAffirmed€in€part,€vacated€in€part,€and€remandedóó.€€€òòNoÐ è'8#* Ðcostsóó.ó ó