In Anderson v. Street, 104 F.4th 646 (7th Cir. June 13, 2024), the court affirmed the lower court’s award of summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Anderson claims that Mott Street is liable for creating a hostile work environment involving sexual harassment. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); see also E.E.O.C. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 903 F.3d 618, 624 (7th Cir. 2018). An employer violates Title VII when a plaintiff can establish that: “(1) her work environment was objectively and subjectively offensive, (2) the harassment she complained of was based on her gender, (3) the conduct was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment, and (4) there is a basis for employer liability.” Swyear v. Fare Foods Corp., 911 F.3d 874, 880 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Johnson v. Advoc. Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887, 900 (7th Cir. 2018)).
Even construing all material facts in Anderson’s favor, we find no triable issue of fact on the third element—that the conduct was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment. See Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655, 667 (7th Cir. 2012). To determine whether harassment is severe or pervasive, we consider factors such as “the severity of the allegedly discriminatory conduct, its frequency, whether it was physically threatening or humiliating or merely offensive, and whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work performance.” Id.
Anderson points to evidence in her deposition that a coworker touched her inappropriately three or four times, that [bar manager] Melazzo called her a “bitch,” and that [general manager] Chung directed her to wear tight, form-fitting clothing.2 Lacking here is frequency and severity. These isolated incidents are not “so severe or pervasive … as to affect the terms and conditions of employment.” Swyear, 911 F.3d at 881 (quoting Johnson, 892 F.3d at 901). While unfortunate, such “off-color comments, isolated incidents, teasing, and other unpleasantries” are not enough for a Title VII sexual harassment claim. Id. (citing Passananti, 689 F.3d at 667). Nor does Anderson put forward any evidence that these incidents interfered with her ability to do her job.
The court concluded that because plaintiff cannot show that the conduct was severe or pervasive, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.