In Oji v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, 2025 WL 2624975 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment.
From the decision:
Though it is undisputed that Plaintiff subjectively viewed his working environment as a hostile one, Plaintiff has cited no legal authority that Plaintiff experienced an objectively hostile work environment. Looking at the incidents Plaintiff cites to “cumulatively,” it is clear that they are the kind of “offhand comments and isolated incident[s]” that do not “amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the court grants Defendant summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.
Plaintiff testified that Mr. Ha, who did not supervise Plaintiff, told him about an experience Mr. Ha had in high school being bullied by African Americans that affected Mr. Ha’s view of African Americans. (ECF No. 57-4, Pl. Tr. at 23-24.) Plaintiff also testified that Mr. Ha informed Plaintiff that he “didn’t like the fact that [Plaintiff] was hired as a GS [level] 12 [employee] because … [Plaintiff] should have [been] hired … as a GS [level] 5 employee.” (ECF No. 57-4, Pl. Tr. at 25.) On May 26, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email to Mr. Fares and Mr. Civello detailing his interactions with Mr. Ha, including Mr. Ha’s comment that Plaintiff should have been hired as a GS level 5 employee, Mr. Ha’s refusal to answer Plaintiff’s questions, the fact that Mr. Ha discouraged Plaintiff from seeking training or following certain instructions, such as adding Plaintiff’s signature to emails, and Mr. Ha saying he does not give an “F” about Plaintiff in the presence of Mr. Fares and Mr. Civello.14 (ECF No. 63-1, Ofodile Ex. 5 at 3.)
These comments, considered in the context of the totality of Plaintiff’s employment, are not so “severe or pervasive … to create an environment that ‘would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive.’ ” Schwapp, 118 F.3d at 110 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 22). For example, although Mr. Ha, who did not supervise Plaintiff, allegedly refused to answer Plaintiff’s questions, during this time another General Engineer, Mr. Vargas, acted as a mentor to Plaintiff, answering Plaintiff’s questions, assisting Plaintiff with his day-to-day responsibilities, and showing Plaintiff how to complete tasks. (Def. 56.1 Statement ¶ 99.) Moreover, Mr. Vargas, who also identifies as African American, provided sworn testimony during Plaintiff’s EEO proceeding that Mr. Vargas did not perceive “the office [to be] a hostile work environment to work in,” noting that “if there was racial discrimination against [African Americans] it would be towards all of us not just one person.” (Def. 56.1 Statement ¶ 105.)
Considering the totality of these circumstances, Plaintiff’s “allegations could not support a finding of hostile work environment that is so severe or pervasive as to have altered the conditions of [Plaintiff’s] employment.” Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 321 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc., 371 F. App’x 115, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) (concluding that no hostile work environment existed even though “defendants wrongly excluded [the plaintiff] from meetings, excessively criticized her work, refused to answer work-related questions, arbitrarily imposed duties outside of her responsibilities, threw books, and sent rude emails to her”); Davis–Molinia v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., No. 08-cv-7586 (GBD), 2011 WL 4000997, at *11 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2011) (finding that “diminished [job] responsibilities,” “exclu[sion] from staff meetings,” deliberate “avoid[ance],” “yell[ing] and talk[ing] down to,” and an increased workload of menial tasks, among other factors, was not enough to show that defendants’ conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive), aff’d, 488 F. App’x 530 (2d Cir. 2012)). Moreover, Mr. Ha was “not [P]laintiff’s supervisor, and there is no evidence that [he] had the ability to affect the terms of [P]laintiff’s employment.”
The court just concluded that, having considered the evidence before it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and based on the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff did not demonstrate a sufficiently hostile and pervasive environment.