In a recent case, Stevenson v. United Animal Health, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00509-TWP-CSW, 2023 WL 9040111 (S.D.Ind. Dec. 29, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for a sex-based hostile work environment asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
A hostile work environment exists where an employee experiences harassment based on her sex that is “so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786 (1998). To survive dismissal on a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must allege (1) she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on her sex; (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment; and (4) there is basis for employer liability. Cooper–Schut v. Visteon Auto. Sys., 361 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir.2004). To rise to the level of a hostile work environment, conduct must be sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter the conditions of employment such that it creates an abusive relationship. Alexander v. Casino Queen, Inc., 739 F.3d 972, 982 (7th Cir.2014). A workplace is subjectively offensive when the victim perceives it to be hostile or abusive, and a workplace is objectively offensive if a reasonable person would find it to be hostile or abusive. Faraagaher at 786. To determine whether an environment is objectively hostile, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances, “including the frequency and severity of conduct, whether it is threatening and/or humiliating, or merely offensive, and whether the harassment unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work.” Wyninger v. New Venture Gear, Inc., 361 F.3d 965, 975 (7th Cir. 2004).
At the 12(b)(6) stage of these proceedings, Stevenson has sufficiently stated a claim to show that she subjectively believed her work environment was hostile. The Amended Complaint alleges that Stevenson engaged in protected activity by filing EEOC charges and making internal complaints. In Stevenson’s email to Obuch, she states that she has “persevered at the farm through poor management and hostility.” (Filing No. 27-3 (emphasis added).) Stevenson also alleges that she communicated wanting to transfer from the farm due to the hostile work environment that existed. The Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that Jackson’s conduct was offensive, Stevenson believed the UAH workplace was abusive and hostile and Stevenson sufficiently alleges the workplace was objectively offensive. The “severe or pervasive” requirement for Title VII claims are disjunctive, not conjunctive; the standard may be met by a single extremely severe act or several less serious acts. Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 828 (7th Cir. 2018).
Stevenson alleges several instances where Jackson called her a “bitch” to her face or referred to her as acting “bitchy” when speaking with other employees. The Amended Complaint alleges that Jackson’s behavior of name calling influenced other employees to act negatively towards Stevenson. Jackson encouraged employees to ignore directions from Stevenson and did not punish employees who treated Stevenson unfairly. (See Filing No. 22 at 6) (“Stevenson reported Hess’s behavior to Jackson on multiple occasions but Jackson failed and refused to take any action or address the issue.”). Stevenson’s adequately alleges employer liability since her direct supervisors harassed her. She alleges she was consistently harassed and bullied by Jackson from April 2020 through May 2022, when she resigned due to the hostile environment. Two years of harassment sufficiently alleges a hostile work environment at the motion to dismiss stage. See Alamo, 864 F.3d at 550 (stating harassment plaintiff faced between 2009 and 2011 was enough to demonstrate a “relentless pattern of lesser harassment” that could violate Title VII).
Based on this, the court concluded that plaintiff’s amended complaint sufficiently pleads a hostile work environment claim.