In Dixon v. City of New York, 23-cv-8941 (JGK), 2025 WL 50140 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s disability-based hostile work environment claims. This decision illustrates that generalized objectionable conduct – such as what might be considered “verbal harassment” – is alone insufficient to constitute an actionable “hostile work environment” claim.
From the decision:
The defendant also moves to dismiss the plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act hostile work environment claims. Hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. See Fox, 918 F.3d at 74 (applying the Title VII hostile work environment standard to an ADA claim); Pistello v. Bd. of Educ. of Canastota Cent. Sch. Dist., 808 F. App’x 19, 23–24 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (applying the same standard to claims for hostile work environment under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act). “A hostile work environment claim requires a showing (1) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment and (2) that a specific basis exists for imputing the objectionable conduct to the employer.” Alfano, 294 F.3d at 373 (Title VII claim).
A plaintiff alleging a hostile work environment claim must demonstrate “either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were sufficiently continuous and concerted to have altered the conditions of [the plaintiff’s] working environment.” Fox, 918 F.3d at 74 (quoting Alfano, 294 F.3d at 374). Courts consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating whether a plaintiff has met this burden including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance.” Id. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)).
In this case, the plaintiff does not allege sufficiently severe or pervasive harassment to support a hostile work environment claim. The plaintiff alleges that Wilkins addressed the plaintiff in “a loud, aggressive and belligerent tone,” and asked the plaintiff “[a]re you telling me you’re not fit for duty?” Am. Compl. ¶ 43. However, the plaintiff cites only this isolated incident to support the contention that her supervisors verbally harassed her. Even in combination with her recurring assignment to the control room, the plaintiff does not plead plausibly that she was subjected to a hostile work environment.
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims must be dismissed.