In Little v. R & L Carriers, Inc. et al, 3:24-CV-836 (OAW), 2025 WL 744276 (D.Conn. March 9, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
To establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show: “(1) harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment, creating an abusive working environment, and (2) a sufficient basis for imputing the conduct that created the hostile environment to her employer.”10 Ferris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 277 F.3d 128, 136 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). “The plaintiff must show that the workplace was so severely permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that the terms and conditions of her employment were thereby altered.” Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 373–74 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Similar to a hostile work environment claim under the ADA, there is a subjective and objective element: “the misconduct shown must be ‘severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment,’ and the victim must also subjectively perceive that environment to be abusive.” See id. at 374 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 21).
As noted earlier, it is irrelevant if “some of the component acts of the hostile work environment fall outside the statutory time period.” Mallison v. Connecticut Off. of Early Childhood, 634 F. Supp. 3d 21, 33 (D. Conn. 2022) (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. at 115). A hostile work environment claim “is not a discrete act but, rather, ‘involves repeated conduct.’ ” Id. (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. at 115). As long as an act “contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was “racially harassed” after he filed a complaint with human resources on September 24, 2022, which falls squarely within the statutory period. Compl. ¶¶ 39–41. Thus, the court may consider conduct contributing to the hostile work environment claim that took place prior to February 12, 2022.
The court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden. Once again, the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff subjectively believed the work environment was abusive. Turning to the objective element, the allegations of racial epithets uttered around and at Plaintiff demonstrate that racial harassment was severe and pervasive. Plaintiff was subject to racial harassment in two different roles over the course of many months. See Compl. ¶¶ 33–41. Plaintiff was the target of degrading language when at least three different co-workers “used the ‘N-word’ at and about Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 33. Moreover, Plaintiff was threatened with physical violence when one coworker said “he was going to lynch [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 34. The “racial tensions,” id. ¶ 39, Plaintiff was subject to constitute severe and pervasive harassment. See Williams v. Serv. Truck Ctr., No. 118CV1430MADCFH, 2019 WL 2314559, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 31, 2019) (finding coworkers’ use of the “n-word” at and around the plaintiff and placement of a noose in the plaintiff’s locker constituted severe and pervasive harassment). These claims support the conclusion that Plaintiff was subject to an objectively hostile work environment.
In addition, the court may impute responsibility to Plaintiff’s employer for his coworkers’ conduct. When a co-worker without supervisory authority harasses a plaintiff, “liability will be imputed to the employer only if it is negligent, that is, if it … knew of the harassment but did nothing about it.” Delta Air Lines, Inc., 277 F.3d at 136 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff alleges that his employer was aware of the racial harassment and took no action. On September 24, 2022, he filed a complaint with human resources, but human resources “concluded that it could do nothing” about the harassment. Compl. ¶¶ 30–40. In another instance, a supervisor was present while Plaintiff was harassed by a co-worker and temporarily put a stop to it, but the abuse ultimately continued when the supervisor was not around. Id. ¶ 34.
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff met his burden, such that his Title VII and state law claims may proceed.