In Rodriguez v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, 23-CV-87-LJV, 2024 WL 3861247 (W.D.N.Y. August 19, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of race-based hostile work environment asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court summarized the black-letter law as follows:
“Under Title VII, an employee seeking to bring a hostile work environment claim must show [1] that she…is a member of a protected class; [2] that she suffered unwelcome harassment; [3] that she was harassed because of her membership in a protected class; and [4] that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.”4 Monterroso v. Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, 591 F. Supp. 2d 567, 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “This test has objective and subjective elements: the misconduct shown must be ‘severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment,’ and the victim must also subjectively perceive that environment to be abusive.” Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 374 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). Courts look at the totality of the circumstances and examine factors including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23.
Although “[t]he standard for a hostile work environment claim is a demanding one” and “Title VII is not intended to create a code of civility,” Scott v. Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 190 F. Supp. 2d 590, 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), the Second Circuit “ha[s] repeatedly cautioned against setting the bar too high,” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 148 (2d Cir. 2003).
“[W]hile a mild, isolated incident does not make a work environment hostile, the test is whether ‘the harassment is of such quality or quantity that a reasonable employee would find the conditions of her employment altered for the worse.’ ” The environment need not be “unendurable” or “intolerable.” Nor must the victim’s “psychological well-being” be damaged. In short, “ ‘the fact that the law requires harassment to be severe or pervasive before it can be actionable does not mean that employers are free from liability in all but the most egregious cases.’ ”
Id. (citations and emphasis omitted).“[A] court’s task is to determine whether the acts about which an employee complains are part of the same actionable hostile work environment practice.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 120 (2002). The Second Circuit recently clarified that “[a] discrete discriminatory act, such as termination, within the limitations period may not only support a claim for damages, it may also render a hostile work environment claim timely if it is shown to be part of the course of discriminatory conduct that underlies the hostile work environment claim.” King v. Aramark Servs. Inc., 96 F.4th 546, 561 (2d Cir. 2024) (emphasis omitted).
Here, plaintiff alleged a hostile work environment based on her failure to be promoted, an “insensitive email” sent to her by the legal team, “harassing emails” sent to her, a “racist figurine” found by her staff, and that when other minority employees complained of harassment, they were transferred to the “hardest development.”
The court concluded that, based on these allegations, plaintiff plausibly pleaded that she met the Title VII hostile work environment standard.