In Moreno v. City of Porterville, Case No. 1:23-cv-00541-BAM, 2024 WL 4347302 (E.D.Cal. Sept. 30, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claims.
After summarizing the black-letter law, the court applied it to the facts as follows:
Plaintiff next contends that her allegations regarding Sokoloff’s conduct in December 2020 are sufficient to provide Defendants with notice of the basis for her sexual harassment claim. (Doc. 20 at 5, quoting SAC ¶ 16.) Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that beginning in December 2020, Sokoloff “started texting Plaintiff, suggesting that she go out with him for a drink. Then he began suggesting she go to the beach with him.” (SAC ¶ 16.) Then, on or around December 28, 2020, Sokoloff asked Plaintiff “to go out of town with him for the New Year’s weekend while his family was out of town. Plaintiff made up an excuse not to go, but Defendant Sokoloff persisted, sending her multiple texts urging her to reconsider. She did her best to convince him she could not go away, and ultimately, she did not go.” (Id.)
These limited allegations are not sufficient to plead a hostile work environment claim. For an environment to be considered hostile, the conduct must have unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance. Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 270-71 (2001); Brooks, 229 F.3d at 924 (identifying “level of interference with work performance” a factor particularly relevant to the inquiry of whether a plaintiff’s allegations make out a colorable claim of hostile work environment). Plaintiff does not allege that Sokoloff’s conduct resulted in Plaintiff’s inability to perform her job or that it otherwise interfered with her work performance. The alleged unwelcome conduct occurred in December 2020, but Plaintiff continued in her position through March 2022, when she voluntarily resigned. (SAC ¶¶ 28-29.)
Additionally, isolated incidents do not amount to a hostile work environment unless “extremely serious.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788; see also, e.g., Brooks, 229 F.3d at 924 (explaining that isolated incidents are rarely sufficient because “the employer will have had no advance notice and therefore cannot have sanctioned the harassment beforehand”); Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 644 (finding “two isolated offensive remarks” combined with other “unfair treatment” was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment). Plaintiff’s allegations of isolated conduct in December 2020, generally comprised of texts, are not sufficient to demonstrate that Sokoloff’s conduct was ongoing or pervasive. Plaintiff also does not allege that the conduct was severe, such that it was physically threatening, abusive, or humiliating. Rather, she alleges only that Sokoloff suggested she go out with him for a drink or to the beach and, on one occasion, invited her to go out of town with him for a weekend. (SAC ¶ 16.)
Based on this, the court dismissed plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims, albeit with leave to amend.