In Dawn v. Nexdine Hospitality, 2024 WL 2258333 (S.D.Fla. May 16, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not pled facts demonstrating severe or pervasive harassment.3 To prevail on a sexual harassment claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to show, in relevant part, the harassment was so “severe or pervasive [as] to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment.” Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, a plaintiff must plead that a “work environment is both subjectively and objectively hostile.” Adams v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C., 754 F.3d 1240, 1249 (11th Cir. 2014). “In assessing whether harassment is objectively severe and pervasive, courts typically look to: (1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct was physically threatening and humiliating or just a mere utterance; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance.” Hulsey v. Pride Restaurants, LLC, 367 F.3d 1238, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2004).
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged severe or pervasive harassment. First, her Complaint identifies three instances of harassment: (1) Walker asking Plaintiff to meet him after work; (2) Walker telling Plaintiff when his wife was out of town, and (3) Walker’s offer to grab Plaintiff’s waist and lift her to reach the coffee. Second, this conduct does not rise to the level of severity Courts have required in other cases.See, e.g., Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broad. Serv., Inc., 234 F.3d 501, 509 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding conduct was severe where it included the defendant “giving [plaintiff] unwanted massages, standing so close to [plaintiff] that his body parts touched her from behind, and pulling his pants tight to reveal the imprint of his private parts”). Third, Plaintiff has not alleged whether the conduct was physically threatening and humiliating beyond the conclusory statement that “Mr. Walker subjected Ms. Dawn to sexual abuse, humiliation, and harassment.” DE 1-1 at ¶ 9. Fourth, Plaintiff has not alleged facts regarding how Walker’s conduct unreasonably interfered with her workplace performance.
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff has not satisfied the fourth element of her sexual harassment claims, and dismissed those claims.
The court did, however, grant plaintiff leave to amend her sexual harassment claims.