In Brunette v. Bausch Health US, LLC, Case # 22-CV-6376-FPG-CDH, 2025 WL 2240477 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 2025), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims of age- and disability-based hostile work environment.
This decision illustrates the well-established point, integral to employment law, that generally unpleasant conduct – such as being micromanaged, reprimanded, etc. – will alone be insufficient to make out a claim, absent a connection between the alleged misconduct and one or more impermissible factors (e.g., race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, etc.).
From the decision:
To prevail on a hostile-work-environment claim, the plaintiff “must make two showings: (1) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive working environment and (2) that there is a specific basis for imputing the conduct creating the hostile work environment to the employer. The employee may demonstrate this specific basis by showing that the employer either provided no reasonable avenue for complaint or knew of the harassment but did nothing about it. To be deemed pervasive, discriminatory incidents must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted. Furthermore, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct occurred because of’ the plaintiff’s protected status and that a specific basis exists for imputing the conduct that created the hostile environment to the employer. Both ADEA and ADA hostile work environment claims are governed by this framework.
Plaintiff argues that his workplace was permeated with micromanagement, harassment, hyper-scrutiny and unfair adverse employment action. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence of a hostile work environment, save for his supervisor’s criticism of Plaintiff’s work. The Court agrees with Defendant. Perhaps Plaintiff’s supervisors did indeed micromanage him or place him under excessive pressure. But being reprimanded at work generally does not, alone, suffice to create a hostile work environment, nor does a fraught relationship with supervisor. Even if the criticism of Plaintiff was unduly harsh or undeserved, it does not follow that his treatment was sufficiently serious or pervasive. Excessive criticism and rudeness do not constitute a hostile work environment. A pattern of simple discourtesy, without more, has consistently been held insufficient to trigger hostile work environment protections under state or federal law.
Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s treatment was sufficiently serious, Plaintiff has not provided evidence that his treatment was attributable to his age or disability. Many bosses are harsh, unjust, and rude. It is therefore important in hostile work environment cases to exclude from consideration personnel decisions that lack a linkage or correlation to the claimed ground of discrimination. There is no evidence in the record of Plaintiff having suffered discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. Without this, his claims cannot survive summary judgment.
[Cleaned up.]
Based on this, the court held that dismissal of plaintiff’s federal hostile work environment claims is warranted.
It did, however, permit the parties an opportunity to present argument as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law.