In Walker v. Northern Pipe & Supply, LLC, Dkt. No. HHD-CV-19-6119581-S, 2023 WL 196032 (Conn. Super. January 11, 2023), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her hostile work environment sexual harassment and other related claims.
From the decision:
The defendants argue that there is insufficient evidence that Greg Schofield sexually harassed the plaintiff or that the harassment was sufficiently severe to support the plaintiff’s claim of a hostile work environment. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there are material issues of fact in dispute regarding the plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment. There is evidence that Greg Schofield made sexually suggestive comments to the plaintiff, including using the term to “Crisco in the can” to refer to the plaintiff’s buttocks, telling the plaintiff to let him know when she was ready for a “real man,” referring to his penis as a “third leg” while adjusting his pants after leaving the restroom, telling the plaintiff that she needed to buy a bikini to wear in the office to attract more male customers, whistling to the plaintiff to bring him coffee, telling the plaintiff that he was staring at her “Crisco,” and texting the plaintiff asking if she was showing her “boobs” to boys. Whether, in the context of the plaintiff’s short, seventeen day employment, these incidents created an intolerable alteration of the plaintiff’s working conditions is appropriately a question for the jury. See Schiano v. Quality Payroll Systems, Inc., 445 F.3d 597, 605–07 (2d Cir. 2006). “Summary judgment is appropriate … only when, on the basis of all of the evidence, view[ed] … in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Furthermore, the court found material disputed facts, warranting the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, on plaintiff’s claim of negligent hiring and supervision (based on deposition testimony by the alleged harasser that he is one of the defendant company’s owners, creating a disputed issue of fact as to the company’s awareness of his conduct), and constructive discharge (noting that whether the plaintiff presented credible testimony establishing that her work environment was so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign was a question for the jury.
It did, however, dismiss plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding that the defendant’s apparent joking reference to the speed of a bullet (in response to the plaintiff’s joking about stealing his truck) could not be understood, by a reasonable person in context, “to be extreme, outrageous, or beyond all possible bounds of decency.”