In Schwartz v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2023 WL 2742059 (E.D.N.Y. March 31, 2023), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s religion and age-based hostile work environment claims.
From the decision:
Even if the Court were to consider the entire record, Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim consists, at best, of Ferrara’s single “old Jewish guy” comment, Ferrara’s failure to meet individually with Plaintiff, and Ferrara’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with additional leads. A reasonable jury could not find that this conduct was sufficiently objectively severe or pervasive to create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. See Clarke v. InterContinental Hotels Grp., PLC, No. 12 CIV. 2671, 2013 WL 2358596, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013) (finding that the plaintiff failed to allege that her workplace was “sufficiently abusive” where “her supervisors snubbed her; spoke to her rudely to her and insulted her worth ethic; excessively scrutinized her work; and gave her more work to do than other employees”).
This conclusion is further buttressed by the Court’s earlier discussion concerning Ferrara’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with additional leads. As stressed previously, Ferrara would introduce new financial specialists to only two or three store managers during their entire first year. (Ferrara Dep. 76–77.) The record does not indicate that Plaintiff received fewer (or lower quality) introductions than any specialists with comparable tenure or similar licenses. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims.
The court held, additionally, that since his hostile work environment claims failed, his constructive discharge claim likewise failed.