In Gulchuk v. Titan Surgical Group, LLC, 2023 WL 4366363 (W.D.Mo. July 6, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s religion-based hostile work environment claim.
From the decision:
To survive a motion to dismiss a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing: (1) he is a member of a group protected under the MHRA; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) his “membership in the protected group was a motivating factor in the harassment; and (4) a term, condition, or privilege of [his] employment was affected by the harassment. Defendant does not contest Plaintiff was a member of a protected group, he was subjected to unwelcome harassment, and the harassment was because of his religion. Instead, it exclusively challenges whether Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a term or condition of his employment was affected by the harassment.
Discriminatory harassment affects a term, condition, or privilege of employment if it is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive working environment. The harassing conduct must be severe or pervasive as viewed subjectively by the plaintiff and as viewed objectively by a reasonable person. Generally, whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive is a question of fact.
In his petition, Plaintiff alleges his co-workers mocked and harassed him for voicing his religious convictions and for saying it was against his religious convictions to drink liquor. He also claims his co-workers mocked or harassed him when he voiced disagreement with them making vulgar comments, using foul language, and recounting sexual acts and fantasies specific to women. Plaintiff disagreed with their conduct because it was against his religious convictions.
[Cleaned up.]
The court concluded that, when drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, these allegations are sufficient to state a plausible hostile work environment claim.