In Swank v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. The Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board of Regents d/b/a Northeastern State University, Case No. CIV-24-102-GLJ, 2024 WL 3400768 (E.D.Okla. July 12, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations fail because the alleged acts do not rise to the required level of severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. In doing so, Defendant downplays many of Plaintiff’s allegations and ignores others. Considering the totality of the allegations, Plaintiff does plausibly allege a hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff alleges a constant string of unwanted comments from May 19, 2022 through August 2, 2022 about her appearance, her attire, her sex life and history, and her dating life. Plaintiff also alleges multiple instances of McCollum inappropriately touching her, including on her buttocks, inner thigh, hip, and waist. Plaintiff alleges McCollum made comments about wanting to discuss the “hotel situation” on overnight work trips and contacted her outside of work. Plaintiff also alleges McCollum made inappropriate comments and sexualized jokes in front of Plaintiff and Keller, his supervisor, who made light of McCollum’s conduct. McCollum also taped a Title IX training certificate to his desk, which considering Keller’s statement that McCollum was her “walking Title IX violation,” could be view as harassing. Considered in their totality, McCollum’s alleged comments and conduct, along with Keller’s apparent knowledge and lack of action to stop it, could be considered well beyond run-of-the-mill boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior. Moreover, although Plaintiff merely alleges that McCollum’s harassment affected her work, outlook and wellbeing, [i]n order to prevail on the subjective component of this test, the law does not require a plaintiff to show that the discriminatorily abusive work environment seriously affected her psychological well-being or that it tangibly impaired her work performance. It is reasonable to infer that McCollum’s conduct altered a term or condition of Plaintiff’s employment and it was an abusive environment. [Citations, internal quotation marks omitted.]
Accordingly, the court concluded that “[a]ccepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, it is plausible that Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her sex” and “[t]herefore, Plaintiff plausibly states a hostile work environment claim under Title VII in Count I of her Complaint.”