In Kayode v. Merrick B. Garland, Case No. 1:22-cv-03802 (TNM), 2023 WL 8083638 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Here, in sum, plaintiff alleged that she was treated in a “rude”, “offensive”, and “unprofessional” manner because she is a black female of Nigerian national origin.
Initially, the court held that plaintiff did not state a claim with respect to the conduct of her coworker, reasoning that the alleged conduct – changing an assignment deadline, arranging for her personal property to be moved without giving her enough time to object, and (3) getting into her personal space – did not meet the applicable standard.
It reached a different conclusion, however, as to different alleged conduct:
Kayode’s second hostile work environment is plausible—but barely. Kayode alleges that her supervisor, Howell, accused her of not doing her work, requested her access logs to the office, downgraded her performance ratings, delayed acting on accommodation requests, referred her to a writing coach, yelled at her at least once, threatened her with disciplinary action, sent her harassing emails, and assigned her to detail at the ISB doing secretarial work. Kayode’s second-line supervisor, Sessions, also allegedly ignored Kayode’s complaints about the harassing nature of Howell’s conduct and wrongfully denied her access to the FDO SharePoint and email list. Many of these allegations involve mere “personality conflicts” that are not actionable under Title VII. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). Nor do these allegations clearly show the kinds of tangible workplace consequences, whether financial, physical, or professional necessary to support a hostile work environment claim. Still, at this early stage, the Court finds that Kayode’s allegations provide enough factual heft to show a plausible entitlement to relief. [Cleaned up.]
Based on this, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.