In Riggs v. Akamai Technologies et al, No. 1:23-CV-06463-LTS, 2024 WL 3347032 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, and held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged, a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
As to Title VII, the court explained:
The Court construes Plaintiff’s federal claim regarding sexual harassment as an allegation that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must plead facts that support three elements: (1) the alleged conduct is “objectively severe or pervasive” such that it “creates an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive”; (2) the plaintiff “subjectively perceives” the environment as “hostile and abusive”; and (3) such an environment is created because of the plaintiff’s sex. Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687, 691-92 (2d Cir. 2001)) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). As to the first element, a court assesses the objective hostility of the environment by considering the “totality of circumstances,” focusing on four main factors: “(1) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether it is physically threatening and humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). No single factor is required.
Plaintiff has stated plausibly a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. First, the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges facts that constitute an objectively hostile and abusive environment – the alleged discriminatory conduct it depicts was frequent, severe, threatening, and humiliating. In the two to three years preceding the commencement of this action, Hickey allegedly disparaged Plaintiff’s work capacities based on gendered stereotypes repeatedly, first accusing her of being “bossy” and then criticizing her for “nurturing” and “protecting” her customers. (AC ¶ 68.) In addition, Goldstein and other male colleagues targeted Plaintiff with vulgar, sexual questions and ridicule, explicitly joking about her private relationships and making unsolicited comments about her sex life. (Id. ¶ 77, 87.) Taking all of the facts in the Amended Complaint as true, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the sexual harassment in Plaintiff’s work environment at Akamai was objectively both severe and pervasive. See Moll v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., 94 F.4th 218, 234-35 (2d Cir. 2024) (finding, on summary judgment, that a reasonable jury could find a workplace with “many” and “regular” “overtly sexual or sexist comments, sexual innuendos, and gender-based disparagements” was objectively hostile and abusive). As to the second element, the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff finds her work environment at Akamai subjectively hostile. Moreover, Plaintiff has alleged enough facts – for example, facts illustrating the pervasiveness of gender stereotyping at her workplace – to show that the hostility and abusiveness she experienced was in part motivated by her gender. See Johnson v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., LLC, 224 F. Supp. 3d 296, 310-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (calling a female employee “bossy” was not sex-neutral because it invoked double standards for men’s and women’s leadership in the workplace); Back v. Hastings On Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107, 122 (2d Cir. 2004) (stereotyping women as caregivers can “by itself and without more” constitute evidence of an impermissible, sex-based motive). Because the Amended Complaint satisfies all three elements, Plaintiff has pleaded plausibly a sex discrimination-based hostile work environment claim under Title VII.
Having concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, it likewise reached the same conclusion as to the state and city law, since “Title VII imposes a higher standard” than these statutes.