In Morgan v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2023 WL 2027101 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 15, 2023), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This case illustrates the relatively high bar facing plaintiffs asserting, e.g., sexual harassment claims under Title VII, and that statute’s formidable “severe or pervasive” standard.
The court summarized plaintiff’s allegations as follows:
Here, Mylan had given Plaintiff a “final warning” while she was out for a medical appointment. The Union told Plaintiff that the final warning was in error and not to worry about it. The Union told her that she would not lose her job and promised to provide her with representation if Mylan made efforts to terminate her employment. Mylan then did terminate her employment. When Plaintiff went to the Union after her employment was terminated, she was sexually harassed by male Union representatives. Instead of offering to help her get her job back, Union representatives made comments to Plaintiff about a photograph of her in a bikini that was on her Facebook page. Plaintiff was humiliated and embarrassed. When Plaintiff tried to get them to stop, “the Union representatives stopped calling her about her termination and failed to represent her in her efforts to get her job back.” Id. Based on these facts, Plaintiff asserts that “but for [her] sex she would not have been subject to sexual harassment and denied help and relief” from the Union. Plaintiff asserts that she “was constantly harassed sexually, she complained about sexual harassment and was subject to sexual comments and jokes when she was trying to have her job reinstated.” The actions were unwelcome. [Cleaned up.]
Applying the law, the court held that these allegations did not meet the “severe or pervasive” standard. It noted, in particular, that there was “no physical touching;” there were no “threatening comments;” while the alleged comments were “unwelcome,” they were not alleged to be frequent;” and the comments (as alleged) occurred “during a single, isolated incident” and were akin non-actionable “simple teasing.”