In Sfanos v. Cranberry Crossroads Dining Venture, LLC, 2:23-CV-1502, 2024 WL 4827171 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 19, 2024), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged an age-based hostile work environment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
From the decision:
Ms. Sfanos’s age-specific allegations are thinner, but they too are enough for now. Ms. Sfanos alleges that managers made “repeated comments” about her age, “[o]n multiple occasions” called her “memaw,” “repeatedly” told her to “hurry up[,]” might have made additional jokes when they told her to “hurry up[,]” and, in one instance, that Mr. Perrin made an ageist comment and said she was “too old to be soft.”
“[S]imple teasing” or “offhand comments,” like the behavior alleged here, are “inadequate” to qualify as “severe or pervasive[.]” Nitkin v. Main Line Health, 67 F.4th 565, 570 (3d Cir. 2023) (cleaned up) (quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788); see also Qin, 100 F.4th at 471 (severity involves “look[ing] to whether the conduct creates an attitude of prejudice that injects hostility and abuse into the working environment” (cleaned up)). And nothing suggests that these comments, collectively, were “physically threatening or humiliating,” or that they “unreasonably interfere[d] with [Ms. Sfanos’s] work performance.” Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 168 (3d Cir. 2013). So without more, Ms. Sfanos hasn’t alleged “severe” conduct. See Whitesell v. Dobson Commc’n, 353 F. App’x 715, 717 (3d Cir. 2009) (comments that plaintiff “need[ed] glasses[,]” was “asked whether she remembered older television shows or movies[,]” and that she was told “come on, old lady, keep up” when walking not severe).
That doesn’t end the analysis, however. “[L]ess objectionable[ ] conduct” can “contaminate the workplace” and sustain a hostile work environment claim “if it is pervasive.” Castleberry v. STI Grp., 863 F.3d 259, 264 (3d Cir. 2017) (cleaned up); see also Starnes v. Butler Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, 50th Jud. Dist., 971 F.3d 416, 428 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Less severe isolated incidents which would not themselves rise to the level of discrimination may, when taken together as part of the overall scenario, evidence discriminatory animus[.]” (cleaned up)).
As Ms. Sfanos notes, her amended complaint includes allegations of frequency (“repeated comments[,]” and comments made “[o]n multiple occasions”). Given these allegations, it is plausible—particularly considering the brief period of her employment—that Cranberry Crossroads’s employees subjected Ms. Sfanos to relatively innocuous comments so often that they “altered [her] working environment.” Ali v. Woodbridge Twp. Sch. Dist., 957 F.3d 174, 182 (3d Cir. 2020). Ms. Sfanos may not ultimately succeed on this theory, but “[w]hether these allegations are true and whether they amount to ‘pervasiveness’ are questions to be answered after discovery[.]” Castleberry, 863 F.3d at 266 (allegations that “ ‘on several occasions’…sign-in sheets bore racially discriminatory comments and that [the plaintiffs] were required to do menial tasks while their white colleagues [weren’t]” plausibly alleged pervasive conduct).
[Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.]
Accordingly, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age-related hostile work environment claim.