.Spencer v. Schmidt Elec. Co., 576 Fed.Appx. 442, 447 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Vance, 133 S.Ct. at 2439). R. Doc. 104 at pp. 1-2 & 3.
Jackson v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., ___ Fed. Appx. ___, No. 13-20575, 2015 WL 585882, at *6 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2015), citing Hockman v. Westward Communications, LLC, 407 F.3d 317, 325-26 (5th Cir. 2004). See also Spencer v. Schmidt Elec. Co., 576 Fed. Appx. 442, 446 (5th Cir. 2014)(To prevail on a hostile work environment claim a plaintiff must prove "(1) membership in a protected group; (2) harassment based on a factor rendered impermissible by Title VII; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment yet failed to address it promptly," i.e., failed to take prompt remedial action), citing Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 654 (5th Cir. 2012). To affect a term, condition or privilege of employment, the harassment "must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment" in the eyes of a reasonable person.
"[A]n employee is a 'supervisor' for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim." Spencer v. Schmidt Elec. Co., --- F. App'x ----, No. 13-20282, 2014 WL 3824339, at *4 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 0214) (quoting Vance v. Ball State Univ., --- U.S. ----, 133 S. Ct. 2434, 2439 (2013)). However, a constructive discharge can constitute a tangible employment action if "a supervisor's official act precipitates the constructive discharge."