In Goodwin v. UTGR, Inc., 2024 WL 4355044 (D.R.I. Sept. 30, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Here, Mr. Goodwin has presented evidence in which a reasonable jury could conclude that the harassment he experienced was severe or pervasive and altered his employment conditions. The offensive incidents Mr. Goodwin cites to reveals at least pervasive discriminatory harassment because there were three distinct incidents in which three individuals—Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Flanagan, and Mr. Gilbert—directed homophobic animus toward him during his time at Twin River. Those three incidents of harassment during Mr. Goodwin’s eight years at Twin River may be sufficient evidence for a jury to find that a sexually hostile work environment exists. See Gerald, 707 F.3d at 18 (highlighting that just three acts of harassment during an employee’s six years working with her supervisor may, if egregious enough, be sufficient to prove a hostile work environment existed). A reasonable jury may well find being called a “pussy ass momma’s boy,” a “bitch ass faggot,” and being told “none of that gay shit,” are incidents that, in the aggregate, show a workplace “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” as to constitute a hostile work environment. Kosereis, 331 F.3d at 216.
Additionally, though certain acts Mr. Goodwin points to as discriminatory harassment have no sexual orientation-based connotation, such as Mr. Hopkins blocking Mr. Goodwin’s car and repeatedly violating the harassment prevention order, this does not “diminish the force of the evidence indicating [sexual orientation]-based animus.” Rosario v. Dep’t of Army, 607 F.3d 241, 248 (1st Cir. 2010). Rather, non-sexual-orientation-based harassment can also be considered when determining whether a hostile work environment existed. See id. (highlighting that non-sex-based conduct are acts that “may be added to the mix in assessing a hostile work environment claim.”). Accordingly, a reasonable jury could find that Mr. Hopkins’ repeated acts of staring Mr. Goodwin down and intentionally violating the harassment protection order contributed to the creating a hostile work environment. As to altered work conditions, Mr. Goodwin has presented evidence that the harassment he endured made him fear for his safety at the workplace and harmed his mental health. See ECF No. 17-9; ECF 17-14. Thus, this Court leaves it to the jury to decide whether the harassment Mr. Goodwin endured was of a kind in which a reasonable person “would have felt that it affected the conditions of [his] employment.”
The court proceeded to explain that the alleged harassing conduct was subjectively and objectively offensive, noting “disparaging homophobic comments, paired with repeated physical intimidation” which was “enough to fall within the bounds of what a reasonable person may find offensive.”