In Bhuiyan v. Department of Treasury, 2025 WL 79634 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 13, 2025), the court adopted a Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
“Sexual harassment that results in a ‘hostile work environment’ is a type of discrimination ‘based on sex’ that is protected under Title VII.” Roper v. City of Cincinnati Fire Dep’t, No. 1:18-cv-901, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158459, at *5 (S.D. Ohio July 12, 2019) (Litkovitz, M.J.) (citing Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986)), adopted by 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161264 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 17, 2019) (Dlott, J.). The protections of Title VII against hostile work environments extend to both male and female employees. Oncale v. Sundownder Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998).
To prove a hostile work environment claim, Mr. Bhuiyan must show that: (1) he was a member of the protected class; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment, based on sex; (3) the harassment unreasonably interfered with his work performance and created an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (4) there exists some basis for liability on the part of the employer. Warf v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 713 F.3d 874, 878 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 655, 678 (6th Cir. 2008)). As to the third factor, “courts must determine whether the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Grace, 521 F.3d at 678–79 (citation omitted).
Mr. Bhuiyan has not provided sufficient factual content for the Court to reasonably infer that Defendant’s conduct was severe and pervasive enough to create a sexually hostile work environment. He alleges one instance where his supervisor invaded his space, exposed his “butt crack”—perhaps unintentionally—and touched Mr. Bhuiyan’s computer mouse. Mr. Bhuiyan has not alleged any other actions or conduct that he found offensive.
The court concluded that “while the Court is sympathetic to Mr. Bhuiyan, this single incident does not allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the workplace was so permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, as to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive working environment.” [Internal quotation marks and bracketing omitted.]