In Boodoo v. AMP Home Care LLC, Civil Action No. 24-1056, 2025 WL 2840801 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 7, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish his hostile work environment claim in that his interactions with Butler were infrequent, not physically threatening, humiliating or disruptive to his work duties. (ECF No. 39 at 15). And as to respondeat superior liability, AMP contends that it was not “sufficiently” made aware of any harassment. (Id. at 16).
Plaintiff responds with evidence as to all elements of a hostile work environment claim. First, as argued by Plaintiff, Butler made overt sexual comments and gestures to Boodoo such that her behavior was clearly based on sex. For instance, she stated to him that “I want to fuck you,” rubbed up against him, groped him, talked about sex in the workplace, made passes at him, and displayed her genitalia to him. (ECF No. 40 at 22 ¶ 23). Therefore, viewing the record in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer sex-based discrimination in accord with the first element.
Plaintiff also presents evidence that Butler’s conduct was severe or pervasive. In evaluating this element, the Court must consider the totality of circumstances, rather than parse out each incident, and consider “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Mandell, 706 F.3d at 168 (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)); see also Carver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[A] discrimination analysis must concentrate not on individual incidents, but on the overall scenario.”). Butler’s inappropriate conduct spanned the entire length of Plaintiff’s employment with AMP. It began on the first day he interacted with Butler and continued until he was terminated. (ECF No. 40 at 22 ¶ 31). Boodoo testified that Butler groped him, showed him her genital area during a FaceTime call, talked to him about sex and that she wanted to have sex with him, made a pass at him and when he objected, told him that she could mandate him to stay with her because he was “on the clock.” (Id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 26, 28). Butler called Plaintiff continuously, even when he was not on duty. (Id. ¶ 30).
Butler’s behavior was also witnessed by other current and past employees who testified that Butler “constantly talked about sex” in the workplace and about male employees with whom she had sex. (ECF No. 40 at 23 ¶¶ 35, 37, 38). Butler also admitted to an employee that AMP created a fraternization policy because of her own inappropriate workplace behavior. (Id. ¶ 36). Moreover, despite his complaints to management, Butler’s harassment continued. (ECF No. 40 at 24 ¶¶ 40-47). Again, viewing the record in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff has come forward with sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Butler’s conduct was severe or pervasive such that the second element is satisfied.
As to the third element, Plaintiff presents evidence that he subjectively perceived the workplace to be hostile because in addition to asking Butler to stop, he complained to Bernie Stiles and Ireland. (ECF No. 40 at 24 ¶¶ 40-45). As such, a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff subjectively perceived hostility in the workplace.
In determining whether the fourth element, the objective test, is met, the Court again looks to all the circumstances it considered in evaluating the second element: the frequency of the conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. See Abramson, 260 F.3d at 280 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23). The Court finds that Boodoo has made a sufficient showing, based upon the facts set forth at the second element, such that a jury could conclude a reasonable person would find Butler’s conduct so offensive that it altered Plaintiff’s working conditions.
The court further held that plaintiff satisfied the remaining element of his sexual harassment claim – respondeat superior – based on plaintiff’s allegation that plaintiff complained of the sexual harassment, yet those complaints were effectively ignored.