context: Finally, with respect to the disparity in power between the harasser and the victim, Kidder was Penn's supervisor at the time he made the comment so this factor initially counsels in favor of Penn. However, there is very little other evidence regarding this relationship in the record. It appears that Kidder was only Penn's supervisor for a brief period of time before the comment was made, and after learning of the comment Penn requested and was granted a transfer. Accordingly, the Court declines to rely exclusively on the fact that Kidder was Penn's supervisor to conclude that the disparity in power was so pronounced that it necessarily made the comment so severe as to alter the conditions of Penn's employment.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 547 F.3d 228, 228
citation_a.parenthetical: discounting the one or two instances of supervisor harassment, where most of complained-of harassment was by co-workers, and stressing that the supervisor be havior did not "remotely resemble the repeated harassing conduct by someone in a position of authority [described in other Fourth Circuit cases]"
citation_a.sentence: See Okoli 648 F.3d at 221 (explaining that there was a significant disparity in power where harasser was “a political appointee who sat in the Mayor’s cabinet and headed an agency with more than a hundred employees, and plaintiff was a new secretary whose job required her to have a lot of one-on-one contact with [the harasser, who was her boss]”); Jennings v. Univ. of North Carolina, 482 F.3d 686, 696-97 (4th Cir.2007) (observing that the harasser was a 45 year-old man and the coach of the 17 year-old plaintiff-victim’s college soccer team and had tremendous power and influence of his players); see also Ziskie, 547 F.3d at 228 (discounting the one or two instances of supervisor harassment, where most of complained-of harassment was by co-workers, and stressing that the supervisor be havior did not “remotely resemble the repeated harassing conduct by someone in a position of authority [described in other Fourth Circuit cases]”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 482 F.3d 686, 696-97
citation_b.parenthetical: observing that the harasser was a 45 year-old man and the coach of the 17 year-old plaintiff-victim's college soccer team and had tremendous power and influence of his players
citation_b.sentence: See Okoli 648 F.3d at 221 (explaining that there was a significant disparity in power where harasser was “a political appointee who sat in the Mayor’s cabinet and headed an agency with more than a hundred employees, and plaintiff was a new secretary whose job required her to have a lot of one-on-one contact with [the harasser, who was her boss]”); Jennings v. Univ. of North Carolina, 482 F.3d 686, 696-97 (4th Cir.2007) (observing that the harasser was a 45 year-old man and the coach of the 17 year-old plaintiff-victim’s college soccer team and had tremendous power and influence of his players); see also Ziskie, 547 F.3d at 228 (discounting the one or two instances of supervisor harassment, where most of complained-of harassment was by co-workers, and stressing that the supervisor be havior did not “remotely resemble the repeated harassing conduct by someone in a position of authority [described in other Fourth Circuit cases]”).