In Wrightson v. Secretary of the Treasury, No. 25-13676, 2026 WL 2254495 (11th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
In order to sufficiently plead a hostile work environment, an employee must allege that: (1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she suffered unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on a protected characteristic of the employee; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) the employer is responsible for that environment under a theory of either direct liability or vicarious liability. To fulfill the severity/pervasiveness element, an employee must prove that his work environment was both subjectively and objectively hostile. We analyze the following factors in determining objective hostility under the totality of the circumstances: (1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee’s job performance. Harassment that is infrequent but severe can be the basis of a hostile work environment claim, as can harassment that is frequent but not as severe.
This court has determined that “one instance of physical touching, two instances in which a supervisor made a sniffing sound while looking at the plaintiff’s groin, along with frequent following/staring was not severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment. Conversely, we found conduct that included unwanted massages, standing so close to the plaintiff that his body parts touched her from behind, and pulling his pants tight to reveal the imprint of his private parts” to be sufficiently severe, as well as physically threatening and humiliating. However, the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing” are the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace rather than the basis for a hostile work environment claim. Harassment that transpires in front of fellow employees is especially humiliating.
The record here demonstrates that the district court did not err in dismissing Wrightson’s hostile work environment claim for failure to a state claim. Wrightson failed to allege conduct that was either pervasive or frequent, as she alleged several instances of harassment from her manager occurring over just two days and involving a single individual, without providing any information as to the frequency of the conduct over those two days. Additionally, Wrightson’s allegations that her manager stared at her, made sexually suggestive gestures with his index fingers by pointing them at her and moving them in such a way as to display his masculinity, invaded her personal space, looked at her manicured fingers, said “Oh screw that!,” and loudly told his wife that he loved her, do not support a reasonable inference that the harassment was severe. Further, those allegations would not make a reasonable employee fear for her safety, and Wrightson did not allege that the conduct unreasonably interfered with her job performance.
(Citations omitted; cleaned up.)
Accordingly, the court held that dismissal was warranted, and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.