In Hughes v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, No. 24-5865, 2026 WL 446413 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment dismissal of his race- and disability-based hostile work environment claims.
From the decision:
The district court appropriately granted summary judgment on Hughes’s hostile work environment claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. A hostile work environment claim requires proof that harassment was (1) because of a protected characteristic, and (2) sufficiently severe or pervasive that it altered the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993). Isolated incidents are actionable only if “extremely serious ….” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998).
Hughes relies primarily on (1) his co-worker Brian Warden’s repeated insults; (ii) his supervisor Wesley Shimaura’s disparaging private emails about Hughes; and (iii) broader hostility toward “light duty” employees. He claims a hostile work environment based on his race and disability.
Hughes fails to show that any severe or pervasive conduct he received was motivated by his race or disabilities. First, Warden’s and Shimaura’s comments were facially neutral with respect to race and disability. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003). Hughes has not shown that the language used here constituted “code words” or involved “racial overtones ….” McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Second, Warden’s comments were motivated by his union-related conflict with Hughes rather than race or disability. Third, Shimaura’s email described Hughes and Warden similarly, countering any claim that Shimaura’s comments were based on Hughes’s race or disability. Fourth, Hughes only learned of Shimaura’s emails after-the-fact in discovery in his administrative case. See Campbell v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 892 F.3d 1005, 1020 (9th Cir. 2018) (discounting evidence when the plaintiff did not “even hear[ ]” the comments herself). Fifth, nothing indicates that management treated Warden better than Hughes after their physical altercation. Indeed, management issued Warden a notice of removal, while only giving Hughes a seven-day suspension. Sixth, the physical altercation with Warden was a serious incident but it was promptly investigated and disciplined. Management separated the employees, Warden received harsher discipline, and no further incidents occurred between Hughes and Warden. A single physical altercation between coworkers does not automatically establish a hostile work environment unless it is “extremely severe.” Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 926 (9th Cir. 2000). The remaining conduct—verbal disputes, disciplinary actions later rescinded or reduced, scheduling overlap required by the collective bargaining agreement—does not rise to the level of a workplace “permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation ….’ ” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21 (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986)).
The court reached the same conclusion on plaintiff’s retaliatory hostile work environment claim, which required plaintiff to show “(i) involvement in a protected activity; (ii) an adverse employment action; and (iii) a causal link between the two.” Here, the court explained that plaintiff “primarily references his conflict with Warden as evidence of harassment, but he fails to establish any causal connection with protected activity,” that plaintiff’s conflict with Warden predates his EEOC activity and stemmed from union disputes, and has not shown that actions by other USPS managers were caused by any protected activity.