In Quinn v. Austin, No. CV 24-10285-NMG, 2025 WL 2841890 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
In support of a hostile work environment claim in this case, Quinn alleges, among other things, that he was 1) reprimanded for using his cellphone at work, 2) questioned about his need to take breaks and use his allotted sick time, 3) prevented from participating in certain meetings and 4) subjected to rude, offensive or profane behavior. As with plaintiff’s discrimination claim, such allegations are insufficient. To be sure, plaintiff’s complaint is rife with factual assertions that, if proven, would demonstrate a difficult and uncomfortable workplace but discomfort in one’s workplace, perceived slights and other de minimis offenses do not amount to an actionable hostile work environment claim. See Suarez v. Pueblo Int’l, Inc., 229 F. 3d 49, 54 (1st Cir. 2000) (indicating that employees cannot bring an actionable Title VII claim merely because they feel slighted or offended). Moreover, plaintiff offers no indication that any of those acts, even if they were sufficiently severe, were done because of his race and not for some other factor unrelated to his ethnicity.
Perhaps the most concerning allegation, if true, and one that is not addressed in defendant’s motion, is that a coworker hung a Confederate flag near plaintiff’s work area. Although undoubtedly disturbing and offensive to any reasonable person, the mere presence of a racially offensive symbol such as a Confederate battle flag, even in conjunction with potentially insensitive remarks, does not create a hostile work environment under Title VII. See Devers v. SNC-Lavalin Generation, Inc., No. 12 CV 3747 RJD CLP, 2014 WL 4954623, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (“[T]he presence of three Confederate flag stickers at a worksite is not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim, even in conjunction with the isolated insensitive remarks discussed in the preceding paragraph.”); see also Flenaugh v. Airborne Express, Inc., No. 03 C 3687, 2004 WL 407009, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Mar.1, 2004) (finding that the display of a Confederate-flag tattoo was insufficient to create a hostile work environment).
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a viable claim of hostile work environment under Title VII.