In Sfanos v. Cranberry Crossroads Dining Venture, LLC, 2:23-CV-1502, 2024 WL 4827171 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 19, 2024), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a sex-based hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Most of Ms. Sfanos’s sex-related allegations amount to inappropriate comments of a sexual nature or about her appearance. For instance, she alleges that Mr. Smith “repeatedly said things like ‘you look good’ or ‘look at those eyes[,]’ ” and that he made sexually charged comments when customers or employees ordered hot dogs. ECF 9, ¶¶ 11-12. Standing alone, those are not the kind of comments so severe that they “create[ ] an attitude of prejudice that injects hostility and abuse into the working environment[,]” so as to “alter [Ms. Sfanos’s] working conditions.” Qin v. Vertex, Inc., 100 F.4th 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).
But Ms. Sfanos’s allegations aren’t limited to inappropriate comments. Mr. Smith also rubbed her back while making comments about her appearance, and when Ms. Sfanos’s objected, he told her she was “so soft, he [couldn’t] help himself.” ECF 9, ¶¶ 14-16. And, perhaps more egregiously, he made a “humping [gesture]” while shoving a plastic container into Ms. Sfanos’s backside. Id. ¶ 18. This behavior was upsetting enough that Ms. Sfanos threatened to punch Mr. Smith if he touched her again. Id. ¶ 20. All these actions occurred over a relatively short time, which is also an indicator of the severity or pervasiveness of the conduct. Altogether, the allegations plausibly demonstrate either severe or pervasive conduct that state a claim.
Based on this, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim.