In Watkins v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2023 WL 2734324 (D.D.C. March 31, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s gender-based hostile work environment claim.
From the decision:
Watkins first alleges a hostile work environment based on gender. Watkins 1, Compl. ¶ 58. WMATA argues that she does not allege any examples of intimidation, ridicule, or insult after she complained about Muller’s conduct. Def.’s Mot. at 17. But Watkins claims that Muller “regularly” and “repeated[ly]” referred to her and other female detectives as bitches and that she was “continually subjected” to the harassing conduct she had alleged. Watkins 1, Compl. ¶¶ 13, 31, 58; Watkins 2, Amended Compl. ¶ 54. This does not constitute a “few occasions,” as WMATA argues. Def.’s Rep. at 10. Although a one-time use of the term “bitch” may not create a hostile work environment, see Barrett v. Pepco Holdings, 275 F. Supp.3d 115, 122 (D.D.C. 2017), a supervisor repeatedly referring to a subordinate female employee by this term is no ordinary tribulation of the workplace. Instead, it is severe, pervasive, and abusive conduct and is sufficient to create a hostile work environment. Bailey v. Henderson, 94 F. Supp.2d 68, 75 (D.D.C. 2000) (“It breaks no new legal ground to state … that the use of the word ‘bitch’ can create a hostile work environment; whether it does or does not depends on the particular circumstances of the case.”).
Watkins also alleges that from December 2, 2012 until February 5, 2013, when she filed her amended EEO claim, her supervisors at one time or another refused to speak to her about work-related matters, spoke to her with their backs turned, refused to assist her, yelled at her when she sought assistance from another supervisor, spoke to her in a curt, demeaning, and condescending manner, denied her request for leave or to leave early, denied requests for overtime, denied career-enhancing training, and placed her on an undeserved Performance Improvement Plan. Watkins 1, Compl. ¶¶ 17-24, 36. Watkins claims that similarly situated male detectives were not treated in a similar fashion. Watkins 1, Compl. ¶¶ 17, 21-24, 27-28, 37.
The court concluded that these allegations are “sufficient to make out a claim of adverse treatment based on sex.”