In Dale v. Cerberus Security LLC, No. 1:25-CV-917, 2025 WL 3041819 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims.
From the decision:
Plaintiffs point to the following allegations in support of their claims. Pamela “was told by management on numerous occasions that she did not meet the ‘demographic’ of what Cerberus was looking for,” and “[o]n multiple occasions the manager, Miranda Douglas…told Pamela that she was no longer on the schedule because of her age, sex, and ethnicity.” (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 24.) Pamela was also “transferred to the west side of the site…which made her feel very isolated.” (Id. ¶ 16.) Like Pamela, Clifton was told “[t]hroughout [his] employment” that he “did not fit the demographics of the company.” (Id. ¶ 48.) Finally, Walker “was told on multiple occasions by Defendant not to schedule black employees at certain locations because they did not fit the ‘demographic.’ ” (Id. ¶ 58.)
Based on these allegations, none of the Plaintiffs have stated a hostile work environment claim. As to Pamela’s transfer to a more isolated location, Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that this transfer was connected to her membership in a protected class. Nor is a location transfer, without more detail, a substantial interference with her employment. As to the alleged racist statements from management, “[o]ccasional offensive utterances do not rise to the level required to create a hostile work environment.” CSX, 643 F.3d at 512. Statements that are “insensitive, ignorant, and bigoted” do not produce a hostile work environment if they “more closely resemble a ‘mere offensive utterance’ than conduct that is ‘physically threatening or humiliating.’ ” Id. at 513 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23). While verbal conduct can create a hostile work environment if sufficiently severe or pervasive, see Black v. Zaring Homes, Inc., 104 F.3d 822, 826 (6th Cir. 1997), Plaintiffs’ allegations that these racist statements occurred on “numerous” or “multiple” occasions are not specific enough to indicate their pervasiveness. Cf. Matthews v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Cmty. Dist., No. 19-13277, 2021 WL 4427176, at *13 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2021) (fact question as to whether offensive remarks constituted hostile work environment when they occurred “once per week over approximately one and a half years”). Ultimately, “[a]lthough despicable, [these] alleged racist statements are not sufficiently ‘severe’ or ‘pervasive’ standing alone” to state a hostile work environment claim. CSX, 643 F.3d at 513; see also Clay, 501 F.3d at 707–08 (fifteen incidents over two years did not create hostile work environment because most were “mere offensive utterances”); Black, 104 F.3d at 826 (frequent sexist comments did not create hostile work environment because they were not sufficiently severe or pervasive); Burnett v. Tyco Corp., 203 F.3d 980, 985 (6th Cir. 2000) (three sexist incidents over six months did not constitute hostile work environment).
Accordingly, the court held that dismissal was warranted.