In Riley v. Borough of Eddystone et al, No. 24-1835, 2024 WL 4137310 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 10, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
For a hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege facts that could show (1) he suffered intentional discrimination because of his race; (2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances; and (5) there is a basis for employer liability.
Riley fails [to] allege facts that could establish severe or pervasive discrimination. To do so, he must allege he experienced conduct that “alter[ed] the conditions of [his] employment and create[ed] an abusive working environment.” Nitkin v. Main Line Health, 67 F.4th 565, 570 (3d Cir. 2023). Courts consider the frequency of the conduct; whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, or merely offensive; and whether it unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff’s work. Mandel, 706 F.3d, at 168. Isolated incidents only suffice if they are extreme like, for example, a “supervisor[‘s] us[e of] a racially charged slur in front of [the plaintiffs] and their non-African-American co-workers … accompanied by threats of termination.” Castleberry v. STI Grp., 863 F.3d 259, 265 (3d Cir. 2017).
Riley alleges only the comment by Riley’s co-worker that “the Borough’s gone downhill since the Blacks moved in,” and the use of the N-word by a different co-worker in addressing an Eddystone community member. (Compl. ¶ 31, 32.) These comments are not “severe” on their own nor taken together: they were not made by supervisors, do not concern the plaintiff in particular, and were not threatening or humiliating. And two comments over the course of two-and-a-half-months tenure is not “pervasive.” Riley also alleges that he “was called ‘N—–’ ” during his employment (Compl. ¶ 30), but does not state who said such a thing or the context in which it was allegedly said, precluding the inference that the comment amounted to or contributed to “severe or pervasive” conduct.
Accordingly, held the court, dismissal of this claim was warranted.