In McBride v. C&C Apartment Management LLC et al, 21 Civ. 02989 (DEH), 2024 WL 4403701 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s race, national origin, and religion-based hostile work environment claims asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
After summarizing the black-letter law, and as to that aspect of plaintiff’s claims pertaining to comments/harassment by colleagues, the court explained:
McBride points to various incidents involving colleagues, but none can support a hostile work environment under the facts of this case. First, McBride was called the n-word by Torres. To be sure, “[p]erhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as ‘[N-word]’ by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates.” It is undisputed, however, that C&C took corrective action once it became aware of that incident by issuing Torres a reprimand. Where, as here, an employer takes corrective action calculated to end the conduct in question, an incident cannot support a hostile work environment claim.
McBride also points to a handful of other incidents in which he was called various names, including a “puta” by Torres; a “cissy hole” and “pussy hole” by George; and a “pussy” by the unnamed C&C employee who McBride alleges is a property manager. These names are certainly pejorative and vile, but on this record, they do not support McBride’s claims for hostile work environment, which are based on race, religion, and/or national origin. McBride provides no evidence, nor offers any explanation, indicating that these insults are connected to or occurred because of his membership in a protected class.
McBride also points to his two altercations with Bailey, including the incident in which McBride pulled out a knife. But there is nothing in the record suggests that their conflicts were based on a protected characteristic. Accordingly, the two incidents between those men cannot support McBride’s hostile work environment claim.
Finally, McBride cites to a comment by a colleague that could sound in national origin discrimination, in which George called him a “fake Trinidadian” to his face. But McBride could not recall if this happened more than once. The hallmark of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII is that the conduct in question be severe and pervasive. The statute “is not a general civility code,” and the “ ‘mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee’ [does] not affect the conditions of employment to sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII.” Accordingly, on the facts of this case, this comment alone is not enough to constitute a hostile work environment.
Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, dismissing those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.