In Ways v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. TJS-25-69, 2026 WL 776070 (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing her sex-based hostile work environment claim.
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s prima facie case of hostile work environment fails, and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. First, there is no evidence that Duarte’s comments were based on Plaintiff’s sex. Plaintiff argues that Duarte’s comments implied to her “that if she was to receive the benefits she sought…[she] would need to conform to the Defendant’s views of how a woman should act and behave towards her male supervisors.” ECF No. 30 at 4. But she fails to cite any evidence from which this could be implied or that otherwise indicates Duarte’s comments were related to her sex. See Hartsell v. Duplex Prods., 123 F.3d 766, 772 (4th Cir. 1997) (explaining that harassment is based on sex if “but-for” her sex, she would not have been the victim of discrimination).
The only evidence in the record bearing on sex comes from Duarte’s deposition, where he states, “I probably said you shouldn’t look like you’re angry, because I [ ] say that to everybody when they…looking angry about something. Especially my superintendents, who are both male.” ECF No. 26-3 at 9. This testimony is uncontested and establishes that Duarte made the same type of comments to Plaintiff as he did to her male counterparts. Plaintiff fails to prove that “but-for” her sex, Duarte would not have made comments about her demeanor or suggested she pay more attention to Coppage. See Hartsell, 123 F.3d at 772 (“An insulting or demeaning remark does not create a federal cause of action for sexual harassment merely because the ‘victim’ of the remark happens to belong to a class protected by Title VII.”). Even in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Duarte’s comments were gender neutral and driven by Plaintiff’s poor attitude and behavioral issues at work, not her sex. Her hostile work environment claim fails for this reason.
Duarte’s comments also were not severe or pervasive. Although Plaintiff may have subjectively perceived the work environment to be abusive, none of the relevant considerations for determining objective hostility establish a severe or pervasive environment. First, Plaintiff cannot recall the frequency of Duarte’s comments. ECF No. 26-2 at 9-12. Second, the only alleged conduct at issue pertains to comments about Plaintiff’s demeanor at work and a suggestion that she pay more attention to her supervisor. ECF No. 27. These comments may be considered rude or demonstrate personality conflicts, but they do not meet the high bar of “severe or pervasive” conduct that Plaintiff has the burden to establish. See Harris, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38482, at *10. Third, the alleged conduct is not physically threatening or humiliating, and at worst can be considered an offensive utterance. See Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264, 284 (4th Cir. 2015) (explaining a single offensive utterance, like simple teasing or an offhand comment, does not create a hostile work environment “without significant repetition or an escalation in the harassment’s severity”). Fourth, Plaintiff does not allege that Duarte’s comments unreasonably interfered with her work performance, nor does she provide any evidence to support such a finding. The record does not reflect an objectively hostile work environment, and the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive.
Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions, without any supporting evidence, that “Defendant’s acts were sufficiently severe or pervasive[,]” that Duarte’s comments “set the tone as to how Plaintiff’s job was to be carried out and executed[,]” and that “[n]othing could be more pervasive than an unreasonable and outdated view of how a woman is to act and behave in her job simply because she is a woman” are insufficient to establish that the conduct was severe or pervasive. ECF No. 30 at 5; Harris, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38482, at *10-11 (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss when plaintiff alleged “vague examples of rude and inappropriate behavior,” including male supervisors waiting for female employees to open doors for them, describing women in degrading terms, and making comments about female employees’ attire).
The court thus held that plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a hostile work environment, and that no reasonable juror could find otherwise.