In Santay v. Ice House LLC, Civil Action No. 24-cv-11583-ADB, 2024 WL 4804967 (D.Mass. Nov. 15, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim.
From the decision:
The elements of a claim for hostile work environment under Title VII or Chapter 151B are that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on the protected status, (4) “the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to create an abusive work environment,” and (5) “the harassment was objectively and subjectively offensive.” Avci v. Brennan, 285 F. Supp. 3d 437, 442 (D. Mass. 2018) (quoting Prescott v. Higgins, 538 F.3d 32, 42 (1st Cir. 2008)). Assessing “whether a work environment is hostile requires a fact-specific analysis of 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.’ ” Dexter v. Dealogic, LLC, 390 F. Supp. 3d 233, 242 (D. Mass. 2019) (quoting Thompson v. Coca-Cola Co., 522 F.3d 168, 180 (1st Cir. 2008)). To plausibly state a claim for hostile work environment, “[t]he alleged conduct must be ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Allard v. Citizens Bank, 608 F. Supp. 2d 160, 166 (D. Mass. 2009) (quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 78 (1998)); see also Posada v. ACP Facility Servs., Inc., 389 F. Supp. 3d 149, 157 (D. Mass. 2019).
There are two components to the hostile work environment inquiry: subjective and objective. Allard, 608 F. Supp. 2d at 166. For the subjective component, “the plaintiff must demonstrate that she actually perceived the environment to be hostile or abusive as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. (citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21–22 (1993)). For the objective component, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would perceive the environment to be hostile or abusive.” Id. (citing Harris, 510 U.S. at 21–22).
The weight of Plaintiff’s allegations center on Mr. Nieves’ sexual harassment and, taken together, state a plausible claim for hostile work environment. Regarding the subjective component, Plaintiff has pled that she found the “sexual comments to be extremely unwelcome,” [Compl. ¶ 10], and that the comments “made her feel extremely uncomfortable and unsafe,” [id. ¶ 13]. As to the objective component, Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim that a reasonable person would feel humiliated and demeaned by the facts alleged. She has pled that the sexual harassment was “continuous and pervasive,” [id. ¶ 6], consisting of Mr. Nieves making sexual comments, touching Plaintiff inappropriately, and showing her pictures and videos of male and female genitalia at work, [id. ¶¶ 9–20]. She has also pled that, upon rejecting his advances, Mr. Nieves became “angry and upset” and “began … threatening her” and her family. [Id. ¶¶ 21–27]. Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable person would perceive the environment created by Mr. Nieves, based on his sexual comments and conduct, to be humiliating, demeaning, and hostile.
The court concluded that “[t]he cumulative effect of the intimidation and humiliation provides sufficient objective indicia of a hostile work environment.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]