Here, we find that the AJ incorrectly concluded that there were no genuine
issues of material fact in this case that required resolution through
a hearing. To establish a prima facie case of harassment, Complainant
must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he
was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical
conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of
was based on the statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected
a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) some basis
exists to impute liability to the employer, i.e., supervisory employees
knew or should have known of the conduct but failed to take corrective
action. See Fox v. General Motors, 247 F. 3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001);
McLeod v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01963810
(August 5, 1999).
In applying this standard, we recognize that the Commission has
commonly found that isolated incidents, unless particularly severe,
do not create a direct and personal deprivation sufficient to render an
individual aggrieved for the purposes of Title VII. See Backo v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960227 (June 10, 1996); Henry
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940695 (February 9,
1995). However, in limited circumstances, the Commission has held that
certain events, by themselves, may support a finding of discrimination
under Title VII.
See Juergensen v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073331 (October 5, 2007) (a hangman’s noose is “a highly charged and powerful symbol in the history of this country, calling up painful memories of the lynching of thousands of African Americans”),
request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080128 (December
19, 2007).
