In Walters v. Shintech, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-277-JWD-SDJ, 2025 WL 918450 (M.D.La. March 26, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
In order to show a hostile work environment at summary judgment, a plaintiff must demonstrate issues of fact regarding whether “(1) the employee belonged to a protected class; (2) the employee was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on the protected class; (4) the harassment affected a ‘term, condition, or privilege’ of employment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.” Clark, 116 F.4th at 479 (quoting Bye, 49 F.4th at 923). “A hostile work environment exists when a 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 work environment.’ ” Wallace, 57 F.4th at 222 (quoting Johnson, 7 F.4th at 399). “Harassment is ‘severe or pervasive enough’ when (1) a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would find it hostile or abusive, and (2) the plaintiff subjectively perceived the harassment as abusive.” Id. (citing Johnson, 7 F.4th at 400). The first factor, “[t]he objective element[,] is determined based on all the facts and considers factors (each independently non-dispositive) such as: ‘the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.’ ”
The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff belongs to a protected class, nor that she was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment based on her sex. (Doc. 24-2 at 19–21.) Instead, Defendants focus instead on whether “the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of the plaintiff’s employment.” (Doc. 24-2 at 20.) They argue that it was not “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions” of Plaintiff’s employment. (Id. (quoting Lewis v. Eye Care Surgery Ctr., Inc., No. 21-475, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228795, 2023 WL 8880348, at *9 (M.D. La. Dec. 22, 2023) (Dick, C.J.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff herself “did not think Boudreaux was sexually harassing her[,]” and that “a reasonable person could not find that Boudreaux’s alleged conduct, even assuming it all occurred, was sufficiently severe or pervasive such that Plaintiff’s opportunity to succeed in the workplace was destroyed.”
…
Here, Plaintiff asserts that on November 7, 2018, while in Boudreaux’s truck on the way to a lab, Boudreaux initiated an unsolicited conversation about sexual activities including bondage and role play, telling her that she “would fall into the category of ‘submissive’ ” and that she “needed someone who knew how to take care of [her.]” After this conversation, Plaintiff alleges that Boudreaux sent her a text with a link about these same topics. Plaintiff also asserts that Boudreaux consistently called her by pet names such as “sweetie” and “stunning[.]” Plaintiff further asserts that Boudreaux repeatedly touched her inappropriately on her side, back, waist, and bra line, and that he “would unnecessarily brush his body against her.” In her deposition testimony, Plaintiff also notes that “[a]ny time that he really could, he would cause his arm to brush up on the side of my breast[.]” In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Boudreaux asked her on a date and invited her to accompany him on a vendor-sponsored cruise in New York City, both of which Plaintiff declined. Plaintiff also claims that throughout her employment, Boudreaux commented on her appearance, including her makeup, which led her to stop wearing makeup and to wear oversized lab equipment in an attempt to prevent his comments. In her deposition testimony, Plaintiff describes an instance in 2019 where employees went to dinner and then bowling, after which Boudreaux—again unsolicited—followed her home. She also notes a second instance when Boudreaux asked her to dinner in June of 2019.
In his deposition testimony, Boudreaux acknowledged touching employees’ backs and shoulders when walking past but denied any other physical touching with Plaintiff. He claims that the two of them shared information about their personal lives with each other, including about their respective divorces. Boudreaux does not deny that he sent Plaintiff a link about sexual bondage or role play, but he claims that she expressed interest in receiving the link. Boudreaux asserted that this conversation was about emotional relationships rather than anything sexual, but he acknowledges that he initiated the conversation. Boudreaux acknowledged commenting on Plaintiff’s eyelashes and asking her out on a date. He also acknowledged inviting her on the vendor cruise, but he asserted that this invitation was made to a group. However, one of the employees who was allegedly part of the group stated in her deposition that she only learned of Boudreaux’s invitation to Plaintiff “much later.” The same employee also testified that Boudreaux told her that he had followed Plaintiff home from an employees’ team building activity, but that he asserted he had only done so because Plaintiff had been drinking.
Plaintiff also presents deposition testimony from another Shintech employee, Kristi Riley, stating that Boudreaux “would spend extra time … to talk to” Plaintiff and that people in the office “could notice and tell that maybe [Boudreaux] was a little sweet on her because it seemed like he was always trying to make his way to her[.]” Riley noted that “there was a different treatment amongst her versus other lab techs.” Riley testified that Plaintiff “confided in [her] … that [Boudreaux] [ ] came on to her in ways that she was uncomfortable with” and that “we noticed that, you know, [Boudreaux] he might be around her and we can tell she really doesn’t want to be bothered.” Riley testified that throughout the first couple of years of Plaintiff’s employment at Shintech, her demeanor became “a little bit more guarded and shut off, like something may have happened[.]”
Likewise, Shintech employee Zenaida Brown testified that Boudreaux would make jokes that were “sexual in nature” and “was trying to get [Plaintiff] to go out so they could discuss, I guess, maybe divorce or coping with that.” She stated that Plaintiff “wasn’t too enthused, or she didn’t seem interested, I’ll say.” Brown testified that Plaintiff confided in her at least twice about potentially inappropriate comments from Boudreaux, although Brown was unable to remember the specific content of the comments. She noted that while Boudreaux was “always more like in personal spaces, in general, like with everybody[,]” he was “[m]ore so with [Plaintiff].” Like Riley, Brown testified that the common belief amongst the lab techs and contract workers was that Boudreaux was “sweet on” Plaintiff.
Shintech employee Tania Hicks likewise testified that Boudreaux was sweet on Plaintiff. (Doc. 34-11 at 8.) Hicks also testified that she “may have seen [Boudreaux], you know, put his hand on [Plaintiff’s] back” and that he “kind of was touchy-feely sometimes” but that she didn’t remember more than that. (Id. at 10.) She did not recall whether he touched her in a similar way. (Id.) Hicks testified that Plaintiff seemed “more tired” and not “as happy overall” as her time at Shintech progressed on a rotating shift. (Id.) Hicks also noted that Plaintiff “wasn’t comfortable with the way [Boudreaux] talked to her.” (Id. at 20.)
Similarly, while Shintech employee Cole Miner testified that he did not discern any inappropriate relationship between Boudreaux and Plaintiff, he described Boudreaux’s behavior towards Plaintiff as “a little more of an affectionate variety as opposed to other people.”
While Plaintiff does not state the exact frequency of Boudreaux’s comments about her appearance, inappropriate physical touches, or other advances, she has presented not only her own testimony but that of numerous co-workers supporting her allegations. (Docs. 34-7, 34-8, 34-11.) A reasonable jury could find that between her hiring in August of 2018 and Boudreaux’s reassignment in July of 2022, Boudreaux asked her out repeatedly despite her refusals, touched her unnecessarily, called her diminutive nicknames, made personal comments about her appearance, sent her an article about sexual role play after initiating an unsolicited conversation about sexual bondage and role play, and at one point, followed her to her home after a team building activity. In Wallace, weekly comments about a plaintiff’s physical appearance, repeated requests to grab the plaintiff’s breasts, and one instance of a sexual comment and massage were sufficiently severe and pervasive to find a hostile work environment. 57 F.4th at 222–23. The Court finds Plaintiff has established circumstances adequately similar to Wallace to meet the severe and pervasive standard. As such, she has carried her summary judgment burden with respect to this prong of her hostile work environment claim.
Plaintiff has also established that she contacted Shintech HR in March of 2020.
[Citations omitted.]
Based on the foregoing, the court determined that plaintiff established a prima facie case as to her hostile work environment claim.
The court further held that defendants failed to establish the “Faragher/Ellerth” affirmative defense to plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, noting (among other things) that “[a]lthough Boudreaux’s alleged harassment may have stopped after March 2020, he remained in the same lab as Plaintiff, in a supervisory position, conducted performance reviews of Plaintiff, with easy access to Plaintiff.”