In Bryant, Regina v. Douglas A. Collins, Sec’y of the U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 1:25-CV-166-PAB, 2026 WL 2718242 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim of hostile work environment.
From the decision:
In the Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment cause of action set forth in Count 5 of the Amended Complaint fails because Plaintiff has not established that her supervisors or her co-worker, Dionna Arthur, engaged in conduct so extreme as to alter the terms and conditions of her employment. In the Opposition, Plaintiff argues that she was forced to work on the same shift as a co-worker who harassed and bullied her and that management was aware of this harassment. In the Reply, Defendant repeats that its alleged acts were not so severe or pervasive necessary as to create a hostile work environment. This Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim fails as a matter of law.
As a preliminary matter, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is bringing a traditional hostile work environment claim or a retaliatory hostile work environment claim. In the Opposition, Plaintiff states that she is a member of protected class because she is a Schedule A federal employee with multiple disabilities, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Dysgraphia, sensory disorders, PTSD, depression, and anxiety and that she is also in a protected class by virtue of engaging in prior EEO activity, including filing formal complaints. Plaintiff appears to conflate the two causes of action. However, this distinction does not affect this Court’s analysis because the touchstone of any hostile work environment claim, including a retaliatory hostile work environment claim, is whether the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. And here the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed establish that Defendant subjected her to harassment so extreme so as to create a hostile work environment.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliatory hostile work environment, a plaintiff must demonstrate the following four elements: (1) the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity; (2) the defendant knew this; (3) the defendant subjected the plaintiff to severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment; and (4) the protected activity is causally connected to the harassment.
To establish a disability-based hostile-work-environment claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is disabled; (2) she was subjected to harassment, either through words or actions, based on her disability; (3) the harassment created an objectively intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment that produced some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment; and (4) there is some basis of liability on the part of the employer.
Regardless of the test being applied, the touchstone of any hostile work environment claim, including a retaliatory hostile work environment claim, is whether the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. Courts consider the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Harris v. Forklift Sys, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993).
Plaintiff claims that Defendant subjected her to harassment when Plaintiff was assigned to work the same shift as Dionna Arthur, whom she accused of bullying. Bryant testified that (1) she and Arthur do not speak to one another and did not speak to one another as early as January 2023; (2) Arthur has never physically assaulted her; and (3) Arthur has never said anything derogatory or verbally abusive to her. Being forced to work with someone whom Bryant dislikes or who dislikes her is not conduct so extreme as to create a hostile work environment. See Barnett v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 153 F.3d 338, 342-43 (6th Cir. 1998) (conflicts between employees based upon personal issues do not equate to discriminatory animus). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claims for hostile work environment and retaliatory hostile work environment fail as a matter of law because Plaintiff has not established that Defendant subjected her to harassment so extreme so as to create a hostile work environment.
(Cleaned up; citations, internal quotation marks, and bracketing omitted.)
Accordingly, the court held that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.