In Varney v. Health Carousel, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-624, 2025 WL 2605783 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 9, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pregnancy/lactation-related hostile work environment constructive discharge claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This decision underscores that, when evaluating hostile work environment claims, it is important to consider the events in question cumulatively, as opposed to in isolation. From the decision:
The constructive-discharge doctrine contemplates a situation in which an employer discriminates against an employee to the point such that [her] working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. When a plaintiff only alleges that she resigned because of discriminatory harassment, she must ultimately demonstrate a discriminatory work environment even more egregious than the high standard for hostile work environment.
When determining whether a constructive discharge occurred, courts consider the same types of circumstances as for a hostile-work-environment claim. A hostile work environment involves allegations that a plaintiff’s workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. In assessing the severity or pervasiveness of alleged harassment, the Court considers the totality of the circumstances—namely the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfered with an employee’s performance. That being said, the Court acknowledges that it is usually inappropriate to dismiss a plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim at the pleadings stage on the basis that the conduct she has alleged was not abusive enough. As the Sixth Circuit instructs, whether harassment was severe or pervasive [is] quintessentially a question of fact.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff only alleges “isolated incidents” that fall short of adequately alleging a hostile work environment or constructive discharge. Plaintiff does specifically allege certain instances of harassment and humiliation: Plaintiff’s manager expressed disgust at Plaintiff’s use of the word “pumping,” discouraged Plaintiff from letting her coworkers know that she was expressing breastmilk, ignored Plaintiff’s request to go home and change her shirt that had milk on it, and criticized Plaintiff for sharing an experience where her baby had spit up milk. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that her colleagues treated her “coldly” and that Defendant failed to take prompt remedial action when Plaintiff twice reported her manager’s harassment. Together, these instances plausibly represent examples of “routine humiliation and harassment” related to Plaintiff’s breastfeeding. Plaintiff alleges that this humiliation and harassment caused her mental health to decline, making it necessary to seek treatment, and to ultimately resign. As for the timeframe, these allegations all took place within a span of approximately four months.
Rather than alleging merely a few “isolated incidents,” the Amended Complaint—read in the light most favorable to Plaintiff at this early stage of litigation—provides examples of pervasive and “routine” harassment and humiliation. This matters. After all, “the issue is not whether each incident of harassment standing alone is sufficient to sustain the cause of action in a hostile environment case, but whether—taken together—the reported incidents make out such a case.” Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 562 (6th Cir. 1999). The Sixth Circuit, in turn, has explained that “comments and harassing acts of a continual nature are more likely to be deemed pervasive and evidence of an objectively hostile work environment.” Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 13 F.4th 493, 505 (6th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted); see also Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP, No. 3:24-CV-875, 2025 WL 611071, at *9 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 25, 2025) (allowing a hostile work environment claim to proceed when three examples of harassing conduct painted a picture of continuous and pervasive conduct).
Defendant proposes that Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State University, 91 F.4th 833 (6th Cir. 2024), counsels in favor of dismissal. In Ogbonna-McGruder, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a hostile work environment claim for failure to plausibly allege severity or pervasiveness. But, that case involved “infrequent” events that occurred over a span of around two and a half years. Id. In addition to the “routine” harassment within the more compressed timeframe in the case at hand, Plaintiff also alleges that the situation caused her mental health to decline to the point of seeking treatment; such considerations add plausibility to the situation unreasonably interfering with her work performance. Thus, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a hostile work environment.
In addition to the hostile work environment standard, courts within the Sixth Circuit consider seven guideposts in assessing a potential constructive discharge: “(1) demotion; (2) reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibilities; (4) reassignment to menial or degrading work; (5) reassignment to work under a younger supervisor; (6) badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee’s resignation; or (7) offers of early retirement or continued employment on terms less favorable than the employee’s former status.” Townsend, 852 F. App’x at 569. In light of the alleged hostile work environment examined above, the Court finds it premature to dismiss plaintiff’s pregnancy discrimination claims. See, e.g., Sobers v. Ascension Providence Hosp., No. 2:23-CV-12126, 2024 WL 1776335, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 23, 2024) (denying motion to dismiss constructive discharge claim); Allen-Walker v. Shelby Cnty. Gov’t, No. 2:23-CV-2746, 2024 WL 3798006, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 13, 2024) (highlighting the allegation of “ongoing” harassment and permitting constructive discharge claim to proceed). As frequently recognized by courts, the objective standard of assessing whether a reasonable person would find the circumstances intolerable is often better suited for a more developed factual record.
(Cleaned up.)
Accordingly, the court held that dismissal was not warranted at this stage of the litigation.