In Miro v. City of Bridgeport, No. 3:20CV00346(SALM), 2022 WL 3284400 (D.Conn. Aug. 11, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment – alleged under the rubric of “hostile work environment” and “quid pro quo” theories – in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.
Here I will address the court’s assessment of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims.
To state such a claim, a plaintiff must plead facts that would tend to show three elements, namely, that the complained-of conduct: (1) is objectively severe or pervasive; (2) creates an environment that the plaintiff subjectively perceives as hostile or abusive; and (3) creates such an environment because of the plaintiff’s sex.
Applying the law, the court explained:
The SAC [Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint] explicitly asserts that the “instances” of Ricci’s alleged harassment and inappropriate conduct “included” numerous incidents spanning the entire period of plaintiff’s employment with the City. Ricci’s lewd comments and conduct were both frequent and continuous; the SAC states that he “repeatedly made comments” about her appearance and that he “stated more than once that he was interested in” making plaintiff his “companion[.]”
Ricci’s alleged conduct was also severe, being often explicitly sexual in nature; the SAC states that Ricci made comments to plaintiff regarding his “skill level at performing oral sex upon a female companion[,]” “puckered up his lips, he then blew a kiss to” plaintiff, and “visually and humiliatingly looked the Plaintiff up and down, and then mouthed an explicit comment of ‘what he could do with that[.]’ ”
Plaintiff also expressly alleges that Ricci’s conduct was humiliating; she asserts that he “made a physically humiliating comment publicly about” her body, and that he “visually and humiliatingly looked the Plaintiff up and down[ ]” at a work event. The SAC further states that Ricci’s advances made her “uncomfortable” and that his conduct “made her distressed, anxious, and humiliated.”
Finally, the SAC expressly alleges:
The conduct had the purpose and/or effect of substantially interfering with the Plaintiff’s work performance to the extent that Plaintiff had to seek counseling;
The conduct created an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment to the extent that Plaintiff did not feel protected or comfortable and felt humiliated; [and]
The Plaintiff felt humiliated, mental and emotional distress to a level requiring mental and emotional treatment.
In sum, the SAC alleges an ongoing course of conduct by Ricci that included “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal … conduct of a sexual nature.” Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Taken together, such conduct “creates an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive[.]”
[Cleaned up.]
Based on this, the court concluded that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the first element of her hostile work environment claims – the only element attacked by defendant’s motion – warranting its denial.