In Rivas v. New York Lottery, 2023 WL 2968185 (N.D.N.Y. April 17, 2023), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court provides the following synopsis of the governing law, and its application to the facts here:
To establish a hostile work environment under Title VII … a plaintiff must show that ‘the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive work environment.’ ” Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 320–21 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). “A plaintiff must also demonstrate that she was subjected to the hostility because of her membership in a protected class.” Brennan v. Metropolitan Opera Ass’n, Inc., 192 F.3d 310, 318 (2d Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s hostile work environment allegations—that from 2012 to the present, OTDA employees have screamed at her, stalked her, bullied her, physically assaulted her, ignored her, shunned her, sabotaged her work, eavesdropped on her cellphone and on conversations in her apartment—lack supporting factual details. Without more information about when these incidents occurred, how often or frequently, who was involved, what was said, or describing the conduct that constituted the bullying, stalking, and harassment, the nonspecific allegations that OTDA employees engaged in this conduct are insufficient to allow a plausible inference that Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her membership in a protected class. [Cleaned up.]
In reaching this conclusion, the court cited Saunders v. Queensborough Cmty. Coll., No. 13-cv-5617, 2015 WL 5655719 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2015), in which the court dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim that was similarly lacking in detail.