In Rachwalski v. Pamela Bondi et al, 2025 WL 2432162 (S.D.Ind. Aug. 21, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race or gender. A work environment is hostile under Title VII when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. To succeed on a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) the environment was both subjectively and objectively offensive; (2) the harassment occurred because the plaintiff was a member of a protected class; (3) the conduct was severe or pervasive; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability.
In determining whether the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable, courts look at all of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, how offensive a reasonable person would deem it to be, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating conduct as opposed to verbal abuse, whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance, and whether it was directed at the victim. Rachwalski argues that Brooks created a hostile environment because she was the only individual he had ever raised the dress code with, he was frustrated by her absence due to her temporary disability, and to Brooks way of thinking Plaintiff becoming engaged would anchor Plaintiff to Chicago and the inference to be drawn is that her marriage would keep Rachwalski drawn to Chicago. Defendants argue that her claim fails because these allegations do not amount to objectively offensive conduct and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive. The Court agrees.
Rachwalski’s hostile work environment claim fails on elements one and three because Brooks’ actions were neither objectively offensive nor severe or pervasive. Brooks never made any comments concerning Rachwalski’s sex. Rachwalski admitted in her email that she may have misunderstood “casual Friday” attire by wearing a ball cap and jersey. Further, Rachwalski does not assert that other male employees were allowed to wear ball caps and jerseys, but she was not. Rather, she merely asserts that because Brooks counseled her on her attire but had not done so with the other employees, he created a hostile work environment. Such action is not enough to constitute a hostile work environment.
Brooks’ frustration with Rachwalski’s absence was also nothing more than that— frustration. Brooks told Rachwalski that she may have to return to the office regardless of what her doctor said and that it was better for her to be in the office so that she could assist her squad mates in a face-to-face manner. However, in the same conversation, Brooks apologized for his comments and not providing her with better support, stated that they may be getting off on the wrong foot, and then approved her continued absence. Brooks’ expressed frustration followed by his immediate apologizing in the same conversation and ultimately approving Rachwalski’s continued telework status was neither objectively offensive nor sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Finally, Rachwalski’s assertion that Brooks’ knowledge of her engagement suggests a causal nexus between her claims and her sex is misguided. Rachwalski attempts to liken this case to Lust v. Sealy, where a supervisor caused the plaintiff, a female employee, to be passed over for a promotion by asking her “why [her husband] wasn’t going to take care of her?” and telling her that she wouldn’t want to relocate her family. The Seventh Circuit held that the supervisor’s sexist attitudes were a causal factor in plaintiff’s non-selection. Sealy is readily distinguishable from the case before the Court. Here, Brooks never made any sexist remarks, Rachwalski’s sex was never brought up in any of their interactions and Rachwalski was not passed over for any promotion or opportunity.
(Cleaned up.)
The court thus concluded that the asserted actions did not amount to a hostile work environment, warranting the award of summary judgment to defendants.