In Matthews v. United Airlines, Inc. et al, No. 2:25-CV-12895 (BRM) (LDW), 2026 WL 1283854 (D.N.J. May 11, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims of sex-based discrimination and hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD).
From the decision:
Here, Matthews argues that during the 392 days as a United employee, United subjected her to a discriminatory course of conduct and a hostile environment that began with explicitly sexual harassment by a supervisor, followed by public humiliation, retaliatory scrutiny, coworker hostility, and institutional indifference after she complained, which ultimately culminated in her removal from the workplace and termination. Taking the events alleged in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Matthews, they set forth an ongoing pattern of sexual harassment and sex/gender discrimination. Altogether, Matthews has listed at least eighteen discriminatory acts since she began her job at United. These are plausibly alleged to amount to more than the occurrence of isolated or sporadic acts. In short, Matthews’s termination is reasonably alleged to be sufficiently connected to the earlier acts to constitute a continuing violation, meaning her hostile work environment claim is timely under both Title VII and the NJLAD. …
While Matthews’s hostile work environments are timely, Defendants contend she has otherwise failed to “allege facts to plausibly link her discharge to her sex or gender. To state a hostile work environment claim under either Title VII or NJLAD, Plaintiff must show the complained-of conduct: (1) would not have occurred but for the employee’s protected status and was (2) severe or pervasive enough to make a (3) reasonable person believe that (4) the conditions of employment have been altered and the working environment is hostile or abusive.
To sufficiently plead causation, Matthews must put forth facts that show the complained-of conduct would not have occurred but for her sex or gender. However, she need only show it is more likely than not that the harassment occurred because of sex or gender.
Sometimes, the but-for causation element may be established by the nature of the harassment itself. An allegation of sexual harassment, for example, may be found adequate where it is based on harassing conduct that is itself sexual in nature. For instance, when the harassing conduct is sexual or sexist in nature, the but-for element will automatically be satisfied. That is precisely the case here. The hostility Matthews faced began with the alleged sexual harassment by Hill, continued with the unfriendly comments from other United employees seemingly in reference to Matthews’s situation with Hill, and ultimately concluded not only with an investigative finding that Hill “violated … [United’s] guidelines,” but also Hill’s continued employment at United and Matthews’s termination.
(Cleaned up; internal quotations, bracketing removed; formatting altered for readability.)
The court concluded that, drawing all reasonable inferences in Matthews’s favor, these facts are sufficient for purposes of a hostile work environment claim based on sex or gender discrimination under both Title VII and the NJLAD.