Dion Berryman v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc., 669 F.3d 714

Eleven current and former African-American employees of SuperValu allege a racially hostile work environment in its warehouses over 25 years.
They provided a detailed, albeit non-consecutive, list of incidents including graffiti, racist comments, and racially motivated pranks.
The district court granted summary judgment to SuperValu after evaluating each employee's claims individually and limiting consideration to events the employee knew about.
The court relied on the totality-of-the-circumstances approach from Jackson v. Quanex Corp. and held aggregation of all plaintiffs’ claims was inappropriate absent awareness of others' harassment.
The district court found plaintiffs failed to show they were aware of the majority of harassment claimed by others, thus denying aggregation and granting summary judgment to SuperValu.
Plaintiffs appealed; the majority affirmed, holding no material fact existed as to each plaintiff when considered individually.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly refused aggregation	Plaintiffs claim Jackson allows aggregation of all incidents.	SuperValu and district court rightly required individual awareness for aggregation.	Aggregation not permitted without individual awareness; affirmed.
Whether plaintiffs’ awareness of others’ harassment was shown	Plaintiffs were aware of or could have inferred others’ harassment given public, repeated incidents.	Record shows lack of evidence that each plaintiff knew of most others’ incidents.	Courts may not presume awareness; plaintiffs failed to show awareness necessary for aggregation.
Whether the hostile environment standard was misapplied (severe or pervasive)	Record shows ongoing, pervasive harassment—sufficient for a jury.	Record insufficient on an individual basis to support hostile environment as a matter of law.	Summary judgment upheld; individual claims insufficient when considered separately.
Whether secondhand knowledge of incidents can sustain liability	Jackson permits considering incidents learned secondhand to assess environment.	District court properly limited to incidents known to plaintiffs or directly claimed.	Secondhand knowledge considered only insofar as it supports perception; not enough here for aggregate liability.

Jackson v. Quanex Corp., 191 F.3d 647 (6th Cir.1999) (adopts totality-of-circumstances; may include non-targeted harassment)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court, 1986) (hostile environment may arise from acts directed at group)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1993) (severe or pervasive standard; disjunctive interpretation favored)
Abeita v. TransAmerica Mailings, Inc., 159 F.3d 246 (6th Cir.1998) (ongoing harassment can satisfy standard even if not every incident recalled)
Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321 (6th Cir.2008) (ongoing, commonplace harassment supports hostile environment claim)
InterRoyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108 (6th Cir.1989) (necessity of plaintiff-specific awareness to support aggregate review)
Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502 (6th Cir.2009) (disjunctive standard 'severe or pervasive' is proper)
Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 567 F.3d 263 (6th Cir.2009) (unavoidably exposed to harassment can still be actionable)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 2002) (hostile environment extends across related acts; environment as a single practice)