In Azanedo v. Alaris Health at Castle Hill, 2024 WL 1727654 (N.J.Super.A.D., 2024), the court, inter alia, affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment claim.
From the decision:
After examining the record on appeal, and considering the proofs as a whole, whether plaintiff was called a “bitch” on a “daily” basis or whether she ever reported these allegations to defendants there is no evidence of any physical threats to satisfy prong two. Furthermore, we observe that plaintiff admitted at her deposition that she referred to certain Alaris employees as “bitch” during the course of her employment, including Robinson, which further negates plaintiff’s argument on appeal. Moreover, on April 19, 2019, Dicalagaro wrote a report stating that a resident heard plaintiff call Robinson a “bitch.” And, on April 18, 2019, Bruce also confirmed that plaintiff called Robinson a “bitch” and stated she would “get even” with her.
As the trial court correctly pointed out, plaintiff was “a perpetrator of the alleged culture at Alaris,” while simultaneously claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment by other Alaris employees using the same word—bitch—against her. We conclude based upon our de novo review that plaintiff’s sex based hostile work environment claim was properly dismissed, and the trial court did not make inappropriate credibility determinations but relied upon substantial credible evidence in the record including plaintiff’s own deposition testimony.
Regarding the hug between Bruce and Robinson, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that but for her status as a female, the hug—which did not involve her—would not have occurred. Saliently, Bruce signed an incident report, but at his deposition, he testified plaintiff told him, “Andrew, I need your help; I want to get this bitch [Robinson] in trouble” and the hug was in appreciation for “doing the floors.” Bruce also testified that plaintiff got on his “nerves,” and he went along with signing the incident form “just so she (plaintiff) can get off my back.”
The hug had nothing to do with plaintiff’s female status and was properly dismissed. See Lehmann, 132 N.J. at 601 (“Hostile work environment sexual harassment … occurs when an employer or fellow employees harass an employee because of his or her sex to the point at which the working environment became hostile.”).
Like the hug, the alleged sexual activity amongst coworkers at Alaris lacked sufficient evidence and did not involve plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff cannot establish that the purported sexual activity amongst other coworkers would not have happened but for her gender or was hostile. Ibid.
The “Ms. Piggy” incident in our view was bad behavior but does not establish a hostile work environment based on gender. This was an “isolated incident” and is analogous to the “simple teasing” remarks in Heitzman, and not actionable.
The court additionally held that plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim was properly dismissed, reasoning that a comment by a fellow employee – specifically, asking her why she was “trying to be black” – was not sufficiently “severe.”