In Couch v. City of Virginia Beach, ACTION NO. 2:22cv196, 2025 WL 672733 (E.D.Va. March 3, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age-based hostile work environment claim asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
From the decision:
In determining whether alleged actions are “sufficiently severe or pervasive,” courts will conduct a “subjective and objective assessment” of the claimed harassment. Jones v. HCA, 16 F. Supp. 3d 622, 630 (E.D. Va. 2014). The harassment must be “perceived by the victim as hostile or abusive, and that perception must be reasonable.” Id. When analyzing whether the alleged harassment is objectively severe or pervasive, “courts consider ‘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.’ ” Id. (citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)); see Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 2d 705, 712-13 (E.D. Va. 2004). Courts recognize that “[w]orkplaces are not always harmonious locales” and “[s]ome rolling with the punches is a fact of workplace life.” EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306, 315 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, the “severe and pervasive test” has been described as a “high bar” for a plaintiff to clear. Id. “Callous behavior by [one’s] superiors” and “even incidents that would objectively give rise to bruised or wounded feelings will not on that account satisfy the severe or pervasive standard.” Id. at 315-16; see Bass, 324 F.3d at 765 (noting that “a workplace dispute regarding … reassignment” and even “callous behavior by … superiors” “do[es] not describe the type of severe or pervasive … age based activity necessary to state a hostile work environment claim”).
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his job duties were changed on occasion, his administrative staff was instructed to report to another individual, Adams yelled at Plaintiff and criticized his work, Adams did not attend functions or travel with Plaintiff, Adams excluded Plaintiff from meetings, Adams made comments suggesting that Plaintiff was nearing retirement, Plaintiff was laterally transferred to another department within the City, and Plaintiff was not hired for certain jobs to which he subsequently applied. Second Am. Compl. at 7-8, 11-13. While these alleged actions may have been frustrating for Plaintiff, the court finds that such actions do not reach the level of severity and pervasiveness required to state a plausible hostile work environment claim under the ADEA. See Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d at 315-16; Bass, 324 F.3d at 765; Jones, 16 F. Supp. 3d at 630.
Based on this, the court held that dismissal was warranted.