In Gonzalez v. Spitzer Autoworld Homestead, Inc., No. 22-cv-21590, 2023 WL 3303180 (S.D.Fla. May 8, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Here, the record shows that before the incident on September 22, 2020 [in which plaintiff’s supervisor, Prohias, allegedly grabbed Plaintiff’s left arm and pulled her towards him, bit her breast, and grabbed her buttocks], Prohias asked Gonzalez out “almost every day,” and Gonzalez “kept telling [Prohias] no.” Gonzalez Dep. at 27:17-18, 22:21-23:8. The record also shows that Prohias had touched Gonzalez’s hand inappropriately, called her “baby,” mentioned a dream Prohias had about her, and asked for a couples’ massage. ECF No. [21-10] at 3-6, 8. On September 22, 2020, Prohias pulled Gonzalez’s left arm towards him, bit one of her breasts, slapped her buttocks “several times,” and held her tight as she tried to pull away from him. Gonzalez Dep. at 27:3-15. Gonzalez testified that, after September 20, 2020, Prohias kept asking her out. Id. at 34:14-25. The first factor favors Gonzalez because the record shows the harassing conduct was frequent before September 22, 2020, and there is a dispute as to whether it continued afterward. The second factor favors Gonzalez strongly given the severity of Prohias’s conduct on September 22, 2020. See Wood v. Kmart Corp., No. 05-60792-CIV, 2007 WL 9698301, at *6 (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2007) (citing Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 1998)) (explaining that the plaintiff in Lockard, “a waitress, complained on several prior occasions about harassment from certain patrons. Later, after objecting to waiting on the patrons, she was assaulted by both of them. The patrons pulled her hair, grabbed her breast, and one of the patrons put his mouth on her breast.”). In view of the September 22, 2020 incident, the harassment here was more than a mere offensive utterance but rather was threatening and humiliating, so the third factor favors Gonzalez. The fourth factor favors Spitzer Autoworld because Gonzalez continued to work at Spitzer Autoworld from the time of her onboarding until the day of her firing. On balance, this Court is unable to hold, as a matter of law, that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position could not find that Prohias’s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of Gonzalez’s employment.
The court rejected cases relied upon by defendant, reasoning that, for example, the conduct here was more severe than in one such case, because in that case, the harasser never placed his hands on the plaintiff.