In Freud v. New York City Department of Education et al, 2023 WL 3103588 (2d Cir. April 27, 2023), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s religion-based hostile work environment claim.
From the decision:
Freud has also failed to state a claim for hostile work environment, which requires him to plausibly allege that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a work environment is hostile, we consider the totality of the circumstances, which includes “(1) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether it is threatening and humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Freud’s allegations – even when considered in the aggregate – do not suggest that Freud worked in a school that was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). At most, Freud has identified an assistant principal’s episodic remarks allegedly expressing ignorance and dislike of his religious observance. See App’x at 83–84 (asking Freud whether all Jews “leave early from [their] job[s] on Fridays” and commenting that “Jews have it made” when Freud left school early). But the case law is clear that “[s]imple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents … [do] not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 75 (2d Cir. 2001) (alteration omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998)). Even though Freud’s allegations may reflect that his superiors were at times “harsh, unjust, and rude,” Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 377 (2d Cir. 2002), he has failed to allege sufficient facts to show that “the complained of conduct … create[d] an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive,” Patane, 508 F.3d at 113.
On this basis, the court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work-environment claim.