In Blanchard v. Tulane University, Civil Action No. 22-260, 2022 WL 13733195 (E.D.La. Oct. 21, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Here is the court’s analysis of that issue:
Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s harassment, i.e., hostile work environment, claims under Title VII and § 1981. Defendant argues “Plaintiff’s alleged acts of work criticism by Hogg and Guy, even if accepted as true, do not rise to the type of behavior prohibited by Title VII and Section 1981.”95 Plaintiff responds: “[n]one of Plaintiff’s Caucasian comparators was subjected to similar hostility, harassment and derogatory conduct by Hogg and Hogg’s harassment and hostility toward Plaintiff was persistent and pervasive.”96
“[A] [p]laintiff may establish a violation…by proving that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult that is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment and creates a hostile or abusive working environment.”97 “In order to establish a claim that discriminatory harassment has created an abusive or hostile working environment, a plaintiff must prove the following four elements in cases where it is asserted that a supervisor with immediate or successively higher authority perpetrated the harassment: (1) that [he] belongs to a protected class; (2) that [he] was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on a prohibited ground, i.e., race, gender, and (4) that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment.”98 The inquiry for the Court at this stage is “whether the complaint contains factual allegations sufficient to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiff’s claims.”99
Defendant did not dispute elements one and two in its motion to dismiss.100 Accordingly, the Court will address only elements three and four. Defendant first argues Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because “[c]ritically, Plaintiff alleges no derogatory comments whatsoever concerning his race or sex.”101 In opposition, Plaintiff argues “[n]one of Plaintiff’s Caucasian comparators was subjected to similar hostility, harassment and derogatory conduct.”102 Moreover, Plaintiff states that Mr. Hogg was also the subject of prior complaints of race discrimination at Tulane by other employees, including the former Director of the Office of Undergraduate Education, Alicia Edwards.103 Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Plaintiff’s complaint contains factual allegations sufficient to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of racial animus.
*8 Next, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not put forth sufficient facts to allege that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of Plaintiff’s employment–element four of the hostile work environment claim. “Harassment affects a term, condition, or privilege of employment when it is ‘severe or pervasive.’ ”104 To establish the fourth element, a plaintiff must show that the environment was “both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.”105 Courts must look at “all the circumstances, including 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” in determining whether conduct is hostile or abusive.106 “Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.”107
In this case, it is clear from Plaintiff’s complaint that he found Defendant’s employees’ conduct to be subjectively offensive.108 Therefore, the question before the Court is whether the complained-of conduct was also objectively offensive. The Court finds Plaintiff has carried his burden on this element.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the following facts in support of his hostile work environment claim: (1) Mr. Hogg sabotaged Plaintiff in a meeting, blaming him for things done before Plaintiff’s employment;109 (2) at a second meeting, Mr. Hogg blamed Plaintiff for being the reason “things are failing in the Business School;”110 (3) Mr. Hogg blocked Plaintiff from meetings with administrations outside of the Business School and stopped sharing information with Plaintiff that was required to support activities for campus partners;111 (4) Mr. Hogg baselessly criticized Plaintiff’s staff in a meeting;112 (5) Mr. Hogg suggested that Plaintiff and his office are the reasons students need so many independent studies in order to graduate;113 (6) Mr. Hogg constantly subjected Plaintiff to unfounded criticism based on false allegations;114 (7) Mr. Hogg ran a personal campaign attacking Plaintiff in toxic emails and while advising students;115 (8) Mr. Hogg removed Plaintiff’s permissions in a necessary software program;116 (9) Mr. Hogg fed Plaintiff’s supervisor incorrect information about his job performance;117 (10) Mr. Hogg “would constantly yell at Plaintiff in public, in meetings, in front of students, and make false statements about Plaintiff to others that Mr. Hogg knew to be false”;118 (11) Mr. Hogg would “make up intentionally false allegations about Plaintiff.”119
Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements of a hostile work environment. First, Plaintiff has alleged conduct that a reasonable employee would find to be humiliating and offensive. Moreover, the conduct was pervasive, allegedly beginning in September 2018 and continued until at least January 2020.120 Finally, Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to show that his work performance was affected. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the hostile work environment, he was blocked from necessary meetings, stopped receiving information required to support activities for campus partners, removed permissions in a necessary software program, and fed Plaintiff’s supervisor incorrect information about his job performance, actions that interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance.
Plaintiff’s complaint contains factual allegations sufficient to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of his claim. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to these claims is denied.
The court additionally, among other things, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged so-called “wage discrimination” claims.