In Williams v. Inspira Health Network, 2023 WL 7151222 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2023), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Defendant argues that “[s]ummary judgment on Plaintiff’s NJLAD and Title VII hostile work environment claims is proper because Plaintiff has failed to show the conduct at issue – isolated to the boorish behavior of a single physician on a single day nine months before her termination – was objectively pervasive or severe so as to alter the conditions of her employment.” (ECF 40-1 at 10). Defendant contends that “the incidents of which Plaintiff complains were not frequent and instead all occurred on only one day” and thus the conduct is not pervasive. (ECF 40-1 at 15). Defendant also avers that the conduct alleged was “not severe and instead amount[s] to boorish behavior falling well short of the type of behavior required for a hostile work environment.” (ECF 40-1 at 16).
Plaintiff points to the numerous incidents that occurred throughout that day, including Pecora (1) commenting to Plaintiff that “he missed looking at [her] ‘ass’ ”; (2) commenting while examining her knee that “this would feel better with no clothes on”; (3) running his fingers through Plaintiff’s hair and commenting that he likes her hair “like this”; (4) making additional inappropriate comments about Plaintiff’s “ ‘ass’ and how good it looked” throughout the day, including stating “your ass looks good bent over the desk.” (ECF 45 at 18). She also avers that Pecora’s history with “every other female working at the Tomlin location … is highly probative of the nature of the working environment.” (Id. at 16).
This Court does not take these allegations lightly, and does not condone the conduct of Pecora. However, the bar in Title VII cases is high, in order “to ensure that Title VII does not become a ‘general civility code.’ ” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998). Here, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as offensive as they are, the allegations do not rise to the level of severe or pervasive as a matter of law.
The court proceeded to explain why the alleged conduct was neither “severe” nor “pervasive.” As to severity, the court – after citing and discussing cases involving physical touching – concluded that “[l]ooking at her allegations together, Plaintiff has not established severe conduct as the majority of her allegations set out comments that Pecora made to Plaintiff about her appearance, one sexually suggestive comment that he would prefer to examine her without clothes, and one instance of touching that was limited to touching her hair.