From Moore v. The City of New York, 2018 WL 3491286 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2018):
Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on Moore’s hostile work environment claims because “[t]he conduct at issue was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and amounts to, at most, trivial slights and inconveniences; and [p]laintiff cannot show that he was treated less well than other employees because of his religion or that defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable.” Defs. Mem. at 13. Moore’s opposition is devoid of any explanation as to how defendants’ actions were severe or pervasive, or how a hostile work environment was caused by his membership in a protected class. In fact, his opposition is limited to descriptions of the defendants’ actions from which he draws conclusory inferences that are not supported by evidence. For example, Moore argues that the City’s “false” charges were used to deny his transfer request and application for a Good Guy Letter (and that the latter impeded his ability to protect himself and his family from a “verified serious threat” by a gang member). Moore Mem. at 20. Further, with regard to the charges, he alleges in conclusory fashion that defendants “single[d] [him] out,” “scrutinize[d] his actions,” and “failed to bring charges … for in excess of a year after the alleged [use of force] incident.” Id. Moore also broadly asserts: “Wettenstein made insulting comments regarding [his] religion” and “Johnson ignored the overtime rule with frequency to ensure that [he] missed his religious services.” Id. at 20-21. None of these actions rises to the level of a hostile work environment, either considered on their own or taken together.