excusable neglect motion, meaning they must “entertain[] an analysis of the [Pioneer] factors.” Id. District courts must therefore review the Pioneer factors and memorialize their analysis; when they fail to do so, the Court may remand and order them to articulаte their reasoning. Id.

Here, the District Court provided no reasoning to support its decision to deny Hart‘s motion to vacate. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the District Court‘s dеcision was a proper exercise of its discretion. Consequently, we will vacate the judgment and remand for the District Court to apply the Pioneer factors in the first instance, and to otherwise conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Stephanie J. Mensing, Esq., Mensing Law, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Daniel H. Aiken, Esq., Dennis M. Mulgrew, Jr., Esq., Drinker Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant, Cassandra Ballard-Carter, brought this case against her employer, The Vanguard Group,¹ asserting a variety of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA“)² and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA“).³ After she withdrew many of her initial claims, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Vanguard on the remaining hostile work environment and failure to accommodate claims. She appeals the District Court‘s ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍decision as to her hostile work environment claim only. Because we agree with the District Court‘s finding that the alleged hostile acts are not pervasive or severe enough to be actionable under the ADA, we will affirm.

I.

Ballard-Carter, who suffers from hearing difficulty and self-diagnosed dyslexia, began working for Vanguard in 1996 as а processing associate. In 2007, she was promoted to Client Relationship Administrator (“CRA“). In that position she performed daily tasks associated with the administration of clients’ retirement benefit plans, including corresponding with the clients directly.

In 2011, Ballard-Carter began reporting to Steve Bakey. Her relationship with Bakey was strained from the beginning, and she alleges that he was “overly petty about [her] written work prоduct,” and would “snap[] at her in the aisle in front of others.”⁴ Things came to a head in 2013, when Ballard-Carter became the CRA for a particular client. Both the client, and the Client Relationship Manager in charge of that client‘s account, were dissatisfied with Ballard-Carter‘s work product, and complained to Bakey that she “wasn‘t answering the [client‘s] question[s], she was answering [them] incorrectly, and she was writing in a way thаt [the client] couldn‘t understand what [Ballard-Carter] was trying to tell her.”⁵ Ballard-Carter was eventually removed from this account in October 2013, at the client‘s request.

During this period, Ballard-Carter‘s allegations of misconduct by Bakey intensified. He allegedly told her that she was “the only one on the team that he has issues with in terms of communication;”⁶ pointed his finger at her and said “you just pissed me off” when she asked what he wanted to discuss during a one-on-one mеeting;⁷ and repeatedly told her that she was not promotable.⁸ He was allegedly relentless in his criticism, and “would over and over again point out every single error that [she] made ... and send it to [her].”⁹ Ballard-Carter also alleges that Bakey made repeated comments about her hearing difficulty and dyslexia, including: “We just said that, you weren‘t listening;”¹⁰ “Cassie, I don‘t hear you, you‘re supposed to be talking loudly at your desk;”¹¹ writing in an email to Ballard-Carter regarding a client, who informеd them of an upcoming audit and the need for rapid responses, “I would add the audit [to a ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍call log] so she knows we ‘heard’ her request. . . . I just think every opportunity we get to show that we ‘heard’ her will reduce hеr need to save old emails;”¹² and calling her name and saying “That‘s right, I forgot you were deaf.”¹³

Ballard-Carter alleges that she became ill as a result of the escalating hostility at work, and, in April 2014, she took medical leave, from which she never returned. In September 2015, within three months of receiving her Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Ballard-Carter filed the pending case against Vanguard claiming disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate in violation of the ADA and PHRA, on the basis of her hearing difficulty and her perceived dyslexia. In May 2016, Vanguard moved fоr summary judgment. During the summary judgment hearing, Ballard-Carter withdrew her disability discrimination and retaliation claims,¹⁴ and conceded that “the alleged dyslexia is not as a matter of law her disability for purposes of [her] claim[s].”¹⁵ The District Court then entered summary judgment for Vanguard on the remaining hostile work environment and failure to accommodate claims. Ballard-Carter timely appealed.

II.¹⁶

To succeed on a hostile work environment claim under the ADA, the employee must show the following five factors:

(1) [she] is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA; (2) she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on her disability or a request for an accommodation; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and to create an abusive working environment; and (5) [the employer] knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt effective remedial action.¹⁷

The District Court based its summary judgment on factor 3—that Ballard-Carter “is unable to show that shе was subjected to severe or pervasive harassment.” We agree.¹⁸

The ADA anti-discrimination mandate does not require a happy or even a civil workplace.¹⁹ Instead, it only prohibits harassmеnt so severe or pervasive as “to alter the conditions ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍of the victim‘s employment and create an abusive working environment.”²⁰ “[O]rdinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use оf abusive language, [] jokes, and occasional teasing” are not enough to sustain a hostile work environment claim.²¹ To determine if the harassment meets the “severe or pervasive” standard, we сonsider the totality of the circumstances, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with the employee‘s work performance.”²²

The alleged harassment here is neither severe nor pervasive. During the hearing before the District Court, Ballard-Carter conceded that оnly the following four comments form the basis of her hostile work environment claim: (1) “Oh, that‘s right, I forgot you were deaf,” (2) “you‘re supposed to be talking loudly at your desk,” (3) “we just said that you weren‘t listening,” and (4) quotations around the word “heard” in an email to Ballard-Carter regarding a client request.²³ At best, some of these comments may be considered uncivil, but certainly none are so severe as to alter the conditions of her employment, and four comments over the course of three years cannot be considered pervasive.²⁴

On appeal, Ballard-Carter finds fault in the District Court‘s laser focus on these four cоmments, and requests that we consider “all of the other instances of harassment” she suffered from 2012 through 2013.²⁵ In light of Ballard-Carter‘s clear concession during the hearing that she is relying only on those four comments for hеr hostile work environment claim, we find no error on the part of the District Court in considering only those four comments. In any event, even if we were to consider “the other instances of harassment,” Ballard-Carter‘s own recitation of the facts make plain that Blakey‘s remarks, while impolite, were not driven by discriminatory animus based on her hearing impairment. Consequently, these additional comments cannot be used to sustain a hostile work environment claim under the ADA.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court‘s judgment.

Kathryn M. VAN ORDEN, Individually and as Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Celena J. Sylvestri, Appellant

v.

BOROUGH OF WOODSTOWN NEW JERSEY; County of Salem; Statе of New Jersey; New Jersey State Police; Woodstown Police Department; Salem County Sheriff; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control; Pilesgrove Township; John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; ABC Companies 1-10

No. 16-4295

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‍34.1(a) on June 12, 2017

(Opinion filed: July 18, 2017)