In Rolley v. Modern Disposal Services, Inc. et al, 21-CV-1229-LJV, 2024 WL 3819410 (W.D.N.Y. August 14, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claims asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
The defendants argue that Rolley’s hostile work environment claim fails for two reasons. First, they say that Rolley describes only a “lone conversation” with Nole, an interaction that is not “severe” or “pervasive” enough to sustain a hostile work environment claim. Docket Item 14-3 at 16. Second, they say that Rolley’s “characterization” of that interaction “is directly contradicted by” an incident report she filed and that the incident report “demonstrates that the conduct complained of amounted to, at most, harmless joking around.” Id. at 14-15. This Court disagrees with both arguments.
First, Rolley clearly alleges more than one instance of harassment by Nole: She describes an initial instance of harassment that occurred in February 2021, Docket Item 13 at ¶¶ 13-14, and then says that Nole continued to harass her and “make sexual comments and advances” after that, id. at ¶ 15. Moreover, as noted above, she says that after she rejected Nole’s advances, he berated her “with verbal scolding, unsubstantiated write-ups[,] and…false work performance comments[,]…creating a hostile work environment.” See Docket Item 16 at ¶ 7; see also Docket Item 13 at ¶ 15. So the defendants’ argument that Nole allegedly harassed Rolley only once fails.
The defendants’ argument based on Rolley’s incident report fares no better.4According to the incident report, Nole told Rolley that she seemed like she would be “a good time” when she was “drunk” and that she “should buy him a bourbon”; Rolley also reported that a supervisor named Larry heard this exchange. Docket Item 14-2 at 4-5. Those comments, viewed in the light most favorable to Rolley, easily sustain an inference that Nole’s conduct was sexual and inappropriate—not merely “harmless joking” as the defendants contend. See Docket Item 14-3 at 15. And contrary to the defendants’ argument, the incident report is not inconsistent with the complaint simply because the complaint includes allegations that the incident report does not. See id. at 14-15. It is plausible that Rolley’s incident report did not describe everything that was said but only what Larry overheard, so the report provides no basis to contradict the complaint at this early stage.
In short, Rolley has plausibly alleged that she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment. The defendants’ motion to dismiss her hostile work environment claim against Modern Disposal therefore is denied.
The court, however, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s quid pro quo sexual harassment claim, noting that while certain alleged conduct “may have been distressing” she “does not allege that it was ‘the basis for employment decisions’ that affected her.”