In Dorsey v. Iberia Comprehensive Community Health Center Inc. et al, No. 6:25-CV-00952, 2025 WL 3263883 (W.D. La. Nov. 6, 2025), the court held that plaintiff failed to state a sex-based hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
In order to establish a hostile working environment claim, [the plaintiff] must prove: (1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on race [or gender]; (4) the harassment complained of affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take prompt remedial action. For harassment on the basis of race to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment, as required to support a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.
In determining whether a workplace constitutes a hostile work environment, courts must consider the following circumstances: 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.
The “mere utterance of an epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee” and “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)” are insufficient to constitute harassment.
In support of her hostile work environment claim, Plaintiff alleges that the Board interfered with her daily operations as CFO and changed a nominal fee from $25 to $15 despite her advice. She alleges, “it was a lot of disrespect towards me from the Board.” She further alleges that CEO Hamilton undermined her authority and bypassed the chain of command to return certain funds, that he “had trouble respecting wom[e]n,” provided more respect to men, avoided and ignored Plaintiff and failed to speak to her when passing. Such allegations do not rise to the level of harassment contemplated by Title VII. Indeed, hostile work environment claims typically entail aggressive behavior, such as statements and conduct. Compare e.g. Shepard, supra (no hostile work environment where co-worker made inappropriate statements and occasional unwanted touching). Here, CEO Hamilton’s alleged behavior in ignoring Plaintiff was merely passive, with no allegations of pervasive, ongoing egregious conduct.
(Cleaned up.)
Based on this the court held that dismissal of this claim was warranted.