In King v. Koch AG & Energy Solutions, LLC, CIVIL ACTION No. 25-1017-KHV, 2025 WL 2106828 (D.Kan. July 28, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Specifically, the court considered the effect on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim of teh Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), which “altered the Title VII landscape by holding that when plaintiffs bring suit under Title VII’s discrimination prong, they need not show that harm was ‘significant’ or ‘any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar.'”
From the decision:
A hostile work environment claim is “composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117. “An employer creates a hostile work environment when 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.” Iweha v. State of Kan., 121 F.4th 1208, 1221 (10th Cir. 2024). Whether a hostile work environment exists “is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22 (1993). Rather, it “depends not only on the number of incidents, but also on the severity of the incidents.” Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132, 1143 (10th Cir. 2008). Whether a work environment is hostile is disjunctive—pervasiveness and severity are independent and equal grounds on which plaintiff can support her hostile work environment claim. Lounds v. Lincare, Inc., 812 F.3d 1208, 1222 (10th Cir. 2015).
Plaintiff must allege that her work environment was both subjectively and objectively hostile. Throupe, 988 F.3d at 1252. To make this determination, the Court looks at the totality of the circumstances and considers “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.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Isolated incidents of discriminatory conduct and “run-of-the mill boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior that is not uncommon in American workplaces” are insufficient to support a claim for hostile work environment.
Here, plaintiff has alleged that Koch subjected her to sexual harassment from January of 2023 through February of 2024 when (1) Mr. Lane questioned plaintiff’s involvement in several meetings and initiatives in front of other Koch employees but did not question the involvement of similarly situated male colleagues in analogous meetings and initiatives; (2) in front of other Koch employees, Mr. Lane stated that he believed that he could speak for plaintiff but did not state that he believed he could speak for similarly situated male colleagues; (3) Mr. Lane refused to allocate members of his support staff to assist plaintiff’s initiatives but did not refuse to allocate resources to similarly situated male colleagues and actively supported the efforts of similarly situated male colleagues to obtain additional staff; (4) Mr. Lane stole plaintiff’s ideas and suggestions without crediting plaintiff but openly credited the ideas and suggestions of similarly situated male colleagues; (5) Mr. Lane criticized plaintiff in front of other Koch employees but enthusiastically supported and encouraged the input of similarly situated male colleagues; (6) Mr. Lane purposefully excluded plaintiff from important meetings and events with similarly situated male colleagues; (7) Mr. Lane made efforts to mischaracterize data issues as plaintiff’s failures in front of other Koch employees but acknowledged data issues and bottlenecks when discussing the work of similarly situated male colleagues; (8) Mr. Lane became aggressive in tone and posture toward plaintiff during meetings and improperly expressed frustration toward plaintiff because she had not previously run her work product through him; (9) Mr. Tredway implied that plaintiff’s salary would be impacted if she did not get along with Mr. Lane, but did not make any similar threats to Mr. Lane or similarly situated male colleagues; (10) Mr. Tredway implied that he would terminate plaintiff’s employment when she confronted him about not being assigned the resources and support she had been requesting despite similarly situated male colleagues receiving the resources and support which they requested; (11) Mr. Tredway was ultra-critical of plaintiff’s work and demanded that her work product constantly be at a working level of detail, while not making the same criticisms and demands of similarly situated male colleagues; (12) Mr. Tredway increasingly criticized and made demands of plaintiff in front of other Koch employees; and (13) Mr. Tredway awarded plaintiff $30,000 less in I-Comp for 2023, while awarding similarly situated male colleagues less drastic reductions, similar amounts or even increased I-Comp compared to 2022.
Plaintiff has alleged at least 13 distinct instances of differential treatment based on sex over a 13-month period. Plaintiff has further alleged that Mr. Lane’s aggressive and hostile behavior occurred daily. Plaintiff has alleged that Mr. Lane and Mr. Tredway’s behavior was physically threatening, humiliating and interfered with her ability to perform her work—it exceeded run-of-the-mill boorish, juvenile or annoying behavior. Thus, plaintiff has plausibly alleged that defendant subjected her to conduct that was both subjectively and objectively hostile or abusive, and she has plausibly stated a claim for hostile work environment under the pre-Muldrow standard.
The court further explained that plaintiff “alleged some harm or disadvantageous change to a term or condition of her employment, including (1) lack of support staff and resources which interfered with her ability to do her job, (2) unfair criticism, (3) exclusion from meetings, (4) aggression during meetings, (5) increased or unfair demands and (6) decreased I-Comp compensation” and, therefore, plausibly stated a hostile work environment claim under Muldrow.