In Edouard v. John S. Connor, Inc., Civil No. 2:22cv263, 2023 WL 3127622 (E.D.Va. April 27, 2023), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a plausible hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Although Plaintiff’s factual allegations are not overly detailed, the Court nonetheless concludes that, accepting all the well-pled factual allegations in the Complaint as true, Plaintiff has stated a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. As relevant to this claim, Plaintiff alleges the following facts:
11. Unfortunately, Plaintiff was subjected to harassment (constant comments about her national origin, Chinese, and appearance) – from March 18, 2019 until approximately August 8, 2019.
12. [ ] Edouard’s direct supervisor, Connie Coffield, General Manager Norfolk Office, repeatedly made racist remarks to Edouard.
13. On nearly a daily basis, Coffield would ask why or assert that Chinese people, like Edouard, would “eat rats, cats, and dogs.”
14. Coffield would encourage Edouard’s coworkers to make the same jokes about eating rats, cats and dogs. Specifically, Edouard’s coworkers, Matthew Thornton and Sharmane Bernales would assert Edouard and other Chinese people would eat rats, cats and dogs.
15. Edouard would routinely smile and try to absorb the terrible emotional impact of this harassment without rebuttal.
16. Coffield additionally would question Edouard on her diminutive nature – asking why Chinese people are so tiny and why Edouard was “so skinny[,]” “so tiny[,]” and “wore heels daily.”
17. Coffield did not make such disparaging remarks to any of Edouard’s non-Chinese (mostly white) co-workers.
18. Eventually, Edouard made known her discomfort with the repeated harassment to Coffield. But Coffield persisted. Coffield made it a habit to corner Edouard in private situations and threaten her with termination of employment.
Here, defendant argued that these alleged statements about plaintiff’s eating habits and appearance were less offensive than those in other cases where the court rejected plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims.
Unpersuaded, the court continued:
It is true that, taken in isolation, a comment “that Chinese people, like [Plaintiff], would ‘eat rats, cats, and dogs’ ” or a question about “why Chinese people are so tiny and why [Plaintiff] was ‘so skinny[,]’ ‘so tiny[,]’ and ‘wore heels daily,’ ” while derogatory, would be insufficient to state a hostile work environment claim. But the hostility of a work environment must be judged “by looking at all the circumstances.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Therefore, the Court considers the factual allegations collectively, rather than in isolation. Most significantly, Plaintiff asserts that she experienced this verbal harassment from her supervisor Coffield “[o]n nearly a daily basis.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 13 (emphasis added). Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Coffield encouraged Plaintiff’s co-workers to make similar comments to Plaintiff about eating rats, cats, and dogs, and two of them did so. Id. ¶ 14. According to the Complaint, Coffield continued making these disparaging comments even after Plaintiff “made known her discomfort with the repeated harassment.” Id. ¶ 18. Finally, Coffield, as Plaintiff’s supervisor, increased the intimidation of the situation by threatening Plaintiff with termination. Id.
The Court concludes that the supervisory status of the primary harasser, coupled with the frequency, constancy, and length of time that the harassment continued, “invest[ed the] harassing conduct with a particular threatening character.”
Based on this, the court found that plaintiff’s factual allegations were sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim under Title VII.