In Macri v. Herkimer County, 6:20-cv-1414 (GLS/TWD), 2023 WL 6295590 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2023), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
In order to establish a hostile work environment claim 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 working environment.” Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97, 114 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). The plaintiff must establish an objective and subjective component: “the conduct complained of must be severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively perceive the work environment to be abusive.” Id. (citing Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22) (other citation omitted).
When deciding “whether a plaintiff suffered a hostile work environment, [the court] must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Love v. Premier Util. Servs., LLC, 186 F. Supp. 3d 248, 253 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The incidents complained of must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.” Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 321 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Although isolated incidents typically will not establish a hostile work environment, a single episode of harassment, if severe enough, can suffice.
The court agrees with the County. Absent from the record is any conduct or incident that was “so severe and pervasive” so as to alter the conditions of Macri’s employment. While Macri contends that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, she has not pointed to one incident that supports her claim. At most, Macri was scolded by Farquhar in front of other employees. And while her EEOC and NYSDHR complaints allege that she was spoken to in a disrespectful manner by male foremen and supervisors throughout her probationary term, this conduct does not rise to the level of “so severe and pervasive” as required by law. Notably, the record is devoid of any insult or slur directed at Macri or any indication that such “hostile” conditions were a result of her gender.
This is yet another decision illustrating the fundamental principle that “disrespect” at work – while obviously unpleasant – will not, standing alone, give rise to an actionable claim.