Bhatti v. Trustees of Boston University, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20019

Bhatti, a Black dental hygienist, has worked at Boston University's Dental Health Center since Jan 2003 under supervisors Needham and Haidar.
She alleges unpaid setup time and other discriminatory practices, followed by retaliation and a hostile-work-environment claim.
Center switched hygienists from salaried to hourly in Aug 2005, affecting pay/O/T eligibility; Bhatti contends disparities persisted.
She filed EEO/affirmative action complaints in Sept–Nov 2005 and MCAD; she amended the complaint; district court granted summary judgment for the University Oct 2010.
First Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and affirms, finding no material adverse actions or actionable bias; evidence largely fails to show discriminatory animus or a hostile environment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination via unpaid setup time against Bhatti	Bhatti contends she did unpaid setup time not charged to white hygienists.	Record shows no scheduling disparity; evidence relies on hearsay and is inadmissible.	No discriminatory adverse action; no material disparity proven.
Discrimination via unwritten rule and leave practices	Center’s courtesy extended to others but not Bhatti; she was treated differently.	Rule was professional courtesy, not a policy; no proof Bhatti was denied an exception.	No evidence of disparate treatment; no discriminatory bias shown.
Missing 2003-04 performance review	Bhatti claims absence of review injured her; alleges favorable treatment to others.	Other reviews exist; a merit raise in 2004 undermines material adverse effect.	Not materially adverse; claim fails.
Retaliation through written reprimands	Reprimands were in response to discrimination complaints and actionable as retaliation.	Reprimands were non-material, corrective, and did not affect terms of employment.	Reprimands not materially adverse; retaliation claim fails.
Racially hostile work environment	Aggregate incidents show severe, pervasive conduct impacting employment.	Conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions; no actionable harassment.	No hostile-work-environment; summary judgment affirmed.

St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (disparate-treatment burden-shifting framework; prima facie case required)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (adverse action for retaliation must be materially adverse)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Conward v. Cambridge Sch. Comm., 171 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1999) (applies framework for Title VII and 1981 claims; disparate treatment, retaliation, hostile environment)
Vega-Colon v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 625 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010) (hostile environment factors guidance; aggregate consideration of conduct)
Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2008) (reprimand may be considered adverse action in some contexts)