In Renondeau v. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York Aquarium et al, 19-CV-2415 (VSB), 2024 WL 1156643 (S.D.N.Y. March 18, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.
From the decision:
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim is based on many of the same allegations that underlie his discrimination claims: the “Haitian motherfucker” and “Haitian sensation” comments, his assignment to remove insulation from the Sea Cliffs exhibit, his demotion and denial of promotion, and shift changes. As discussed supra, several of these incidents are benign or not materially adverse to Plaintiff’s employment. The only claims I have not already addressed and dismissed for failure to meet the standard of adverse actions involve the “Haitian” comments. I find that these incidents are not severe or frequent enough such that a reasonable juror could find that Plaintiff was the victim of a hostile work environment.
First, Ethier only made the more explicit of the two comments, referring to Plaintiff as a “Haitian motherfucker,” one time in December 2015 after Plaintiff won a raffle prize at a holiday party. In evaluating Plaintiff’s complaint about this comment, WCS determined that it was an “isolated, one-time remark” that “was not accompanied by an expression of hostility or racial animus,” “was in a setting of a party,” “has not been repeated,” and established “no evidence of discrimination or retaliation towards [Plaintiff].” Such a random, one-off comment that is not shown to have been motivated by racial animus is insufficient to establish a hostile work environment. See Whidbee, 223 F.3d at 69 (“Incidents that are few in number and that occur over a short period of time may fail to demonstrate a hostile work environment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Paul v. Postgraduate Ctr. for Mental Health, 97 F. Supp. 3d 141, 167 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (few comments that plaintiff “cannot be ‘boss’ because he is old andHaitian” do not support a hostile work environment claim); Wesley-Dickson v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 973 F. Supp. 2d 386, 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d, 586 F. App’x 739 (2d Cir. 2014) (few references comparing plaintiff to “Aunt Jemima” and “down on the plantation” were not sufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment); Garone v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 448, 469 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), aff’d, 254 Fed. App’x. 108 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that “the occasional off-color remark” did not rise to the level of an objectively hostile work environment).
With regard to the “Haitian sensation” comment, Figueroa testified that Ethier made the comment a few times in a joking manner in connection with his reference to Plaintiff as a “fitness guy.” Figueroa testified that it seemed “welcome by Plaintiff.” Although the phrases do reference Plaintiff’s race, Plaintiff does not demonstrate that Ethier’s comments were motivated by racial animus, and they are not sufficiently severe enough to transform Plaintiff’s workplace into a hostile work environment. See, e.g., Postgraduate Ctr. for Mental Health, 97 F. Supp. 3d at 167 (references to the fact that plaintiff “is old and Haitian” do not support a hostile work environment claim); Mack v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 225 F. Supp. 2d 376, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (allegation that plaintiff was called “good boy” multiple times was insufficient to sustain hostile work environment claim).
[Citations omitted.]
The court concluded that no reasonable juror could, based on these facts, find that defendants created a hostile work environment, justifying dismissal of those claims.