In Nuñez-Renck v. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), 2023 WL 8464950 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 6, 2023), the court, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This decision is instructive as to what a complaint alleging a hostile work environment claim must set forth.
The court wrote:
To state a plausible Title VII hostile work environment claim based on conduct of a non-supervisor, Nuñez must allege factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on a protected characteristic; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) her employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. See EEOC v. WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
Nuñez alleges in several places in her amended complaint that she experienced “harassment” at work. Am Compl. ¶¶ 33, 37, 57. But she does not plead specific facts indicating the discriminatory words or actions to which she was subjected, or plausibly plead that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment.
The court held that plaintiff’s “vague and conclusory allegations are still insufficient to plead a plausible hostile work environment claim, whether based on the conduct of a supervisor or a non-supervisory coworker.”