In Shelton v. University Healthcare System, L.C., 2025 WL 816293 (E.D.La. March 14, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision is instructive on Title VII’s “severe or pervasive” standard for assessing such claims.
From the decision:
The “Severe and Pervasive” requirement is disjunctive. Lauderdale v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 512 F.3d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 2007). The required showing of severity varies inversely with the pervasiveness of the conduct. Lauderdale, 512 F.3d at 163. But “isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)” cannot support a hostile work environment claim. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (citation omitted). A hostile work environment “necessarily rests on an allegation that an employer has created a working environment heavily charged with…discrimination.” Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d 322, 331 (5th Cir. 2013). Violations occur when a workplace is “permeated with discriminatory behavior.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21. Even though a plaintiff does not need to make a prime facie case of discrimination, she must allege sufficient facts to support each element of her Title VII claim. Cicalese v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 924 F.3d 762, 766 (5th Cir. 2019).
Even considering the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, two isolated incidents of “increased workloads” lack the severity and pervasiveness necessary to support hostile work environment claims. On pervasiveness, Plaintiff only alleges she had an “unreasonable workload” twice. See R. Doc. 42 at ¶¶ 20-26. At best these are isolated incidents. Two incidents are considered isolated events and require allegations of egregious conduct. See, e.g., West v. City of Houston, Texas, 960 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2020) (characterizing complained of actions that occurred “twice” as “isolated” and “infrequent” needing allegations of egregious conduct); Jackson v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 601 F. App’x 280 (5th Cir. 2015) (characterizing allegations that a coworker made offensive comments twice as “isolated” and holding that such allegations did not affect the terms and conditions of his employment because the conduct was not egregious). On severity, the increased workload alleged here does not amount to egregious conduct. Plaintiff does not allege the conduct was physically threatening, humiliating, or offensive.
Further, courts have also previously recognized that additional workload requirements, like working more hours on occasion, does not amount to severe and pervasive harassment. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ben E. Keith Co., No. 4:16-CV-1134-A, 2017 WL 4653447, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2017) (allegations an employee was required to work more hours and meet higher performance standards than coworkers did not sustain a hostile work environment claim); Green v. Trimac Transportation S., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-444, 2012 WL 12893293, at *14 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2012), aff’d sub nom. Green v. Trimac Transp., Inc., 546 F. App’x 333 (5th Cir. 2013) (dismissing a hostile work environment claim predicated on allegations that a plaintiff had additional duties and exceeded allowable hours of service); see also Watkins v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 269 Fed.Appx. 457, 464 (5th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a plaintiff’s attempt to support a hostile work environment claim based on allegations that because an event happened to African American employees it must be discriminatory). “[T]emporary changes to schedule and duty assignments…do not support a hostile work environment claim.” Morris v. Pellerin Milnor Corp., No. CV 16-15905, 2018 WL 1726257, at *11 (E.D. La. Apr. 10, 2018) (citing Hiner v. McHugh, 546 Fed.Appx. 401, 407 (5th Cir. 2013); Ellis v. Principi, 246 Fed.Appx. 867, 871 (5th Cir. 2007); Bryan v. Chertoff, 217 Fed.Appx. 289, 294 (5th Cir. 2007); Escalante v. Holder, No. EP-09-CV-368-KC, 2011 WL 1528472, at *8 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2011)). That is because § 1981 or Title VII does not “impose a general civility code” or “filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace.” Burrle v. Plaquemines Par. Govt., CIV.A. 12–739, 2013 WL 2286113, at *4 (E.D. La. May 23, 2013).
It may be unpleasant to be asked to do more procedures than colleagues. But doing so on two days out of a months long tenure is an isolated incident. Such isolated incidents require allegations of egregious conduct. Merely being asked to perform more procedures than others falls short of this standard.
Thus, the court held that plaintiff has not sufficiently pled hostile work environment claims.