In Johnson v. 212 Fremont Sandusky Wine & Spirit, LLC, 2025 WL 843390(N.D.Ohio March 18, 2025), the court ruled on defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as well as Ohio stae law).
As to two plaintiffs, the court held that Title VII’s “severe or pervasive” standard was not satisfied:
Skelton testified Mominee made a single remark referencing her breast size, in effect stating contractors only spoke to her because of her breasts. (Skelton Depo., at 15-16). However, aside from this isolated crude comment about her body, Skelton points to no evidence of further sexual comments, advances, touching, or repeated harassment during her brief employment. A one-time inappropriate remark, while certainly entirely inappropriate and unprofessional, is generally not enough to meet the severe or pervasive threshold under Sixth Circuit law. See Bowman v. Shawnee State Univ., 220 F.3d 456, 464 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding isolated offensive remarks or occasional comments cannot usually support a hostile environment claim); see also Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 F.3d 341, 351 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding sporadic remarks or intimidation often do not suffice). Because Skelton does not meet the stringent “severe or pervasive” requirement, her Title VII and Chapter 4112 sexual harassment/hostile work environment claims fail. …
Johnson testified Mominee suggested the two have an affair, made one sexual gesture, and became controlling or critical as a result of her not responding to his advancements. (Johnson Dec., at ¶¶ 5-9). Although the alleged hostility may have made work unpleasant, Sixth Circuit authority requires more to rise to an actionable level of severity or pervasiveness. For example, in Clark, a supervisor’s off-color remarks and rude behavior over a couple of months were not enough when they lacked physical intimidation or extreme abuse. 400 F.3d at 464. Johnson therefore fails to establish the fourth element. Her hostile work environment claim does not meet the severe or pervasive standard and therefore does not survive summary judgment.
However, as to the third plaintiff, McKenzie, the court reached the opposite conclusion, finding sufficient evidence to proceed to trial:
McKenzie contends that Mominee grabbed her waist multiple times (McKenzie Depo., at 12), and that Sharpey asked, via Snapchat, if he could “motorboat [her] titties.” Id. at 15. The Sixth Circuit recognizes that a single instance of unwelcome physical contact — particularly one of a sexual nature — combined with an explicit sexual remark can be “severe or pervasive” depending on context. See Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321, 334-35 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding physical contact plus explicit comments may create a hostile environment). In contrast to Skelton and Johnson, the nature of the harassment McKenzie identifies is more direct and physical. Therefore, the Court finds McKenzie has presented evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a hostile work environment existed.
This decision thus illustrates the highly fact-specific nature of these claims.