In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sunrooms and More Design Center, Inc., No. CIV-24-01016-PRW, 2026 WL 483481 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court summarized plaintiff’s allegations as follows:
Shannon was employed as a Customer Support Manager by Sunrooms from approximately November 2021 to May 15, 2023. General Manager Michael Hainrihar (who “performs the human resources functions” for Sunrooms) directly supervised Shannon. (Id. at 2). Donald Durrett is the majority owner of Sunrooms.
Shannon alleges Durrett subjected her and other female employees to daily verbal (and sometimes physical) sexual harassment throughout her entire employment. For example, Shannon alleges that shortly before her birthday, Durrett told her not to get pregnant and later asked if she was ready for her birthday spanking. (Dkt. 17, at 2–3). Shannon reported Durrett’s comments to Hainrihar, but he merely instructed Shannon (and another female employee) to advise newly hired women to be careful around Durrett. Hainrihar would also monitor the video cameras at the facility and call Shannon if he observed Durrett talking with female employees to ask about the interaction.
Shannon tolerated Durrett’s comments and innuendos until early April 2023, when it turned physical. Durrett allegedly pulled one of Shannon’s “thigh high” socks down to her ankle, commenting that he “liked them better that way.” (Dkt. 17, at 3–4). This left a scratch on Shannon’s leg. Shannon was visibly upset and told Durrett that his behavior was “not okay.” She immediately reported the incident to Hainrihar, who, after meeting with Durrett, told Shannon to take the rest of the week off without pay “to get [her] life together.” (Id. at 4 (alteration in original)). Shannon agreed to take the rest of the day off, but informed Hainrihar that she could not afford to take the whole week off. The next day, Hainrihar scolded her for leaving work early the previous day.
Immediately thereafter, Hainrihar began retaliating against her. Specifically, on April 22, 2023, Hainrihar withheld Shannon’s bonuses that she earned from scheduling potential customer consultations. When Shannon asked Hainrihar about withholding her bonuses, he claimed she was not entitled to them because one customer was Durrett’s friend and another had a flat roof. These reasons, however, had never previously disqualified her from receiving bonuses. The next day, Hainrihar denied a previously approved vacation day scheduled for early May.
Meanwhile, Durrett’s harassing conduct continued. On May 2, 2023, Durrett told her that her voice was “sexy.” On May 8, he said that Shannon looked nice and needed an older man. On May 9, Hainrihar again withheld Shannon’s bonuses.
In applying the law to the facts, the court explained:
Turning to the merits, Sunrooms argues that Shannon has not stated a claim for hostile work environment. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee “with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of her sex. To state a claim for hostile work environment, a plaintiff must allege facts showing “(1) that she was discriminated against because of her sex; and (2) that the discrimination was sufficiently severe or pervasive such that it altered the terms or conditions of her employment and created an abusive working environment.” Severity and pervasiveness “must be judged from both an objective and a subjective perspective.” Sunrooms does not dispute that Shannon subjectively perceived her work environment as hostile. Instead, it argues that the alleged conduct was not objectively severe or pervasive enough to support a hostile work environment claim.
Courts are to evaluate severity and pervasiveness based on the totality of the circumstances in the social context of the workplace, including factors such as 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 Tenth Circuit has noted that the severity and pervasiveness evaluation is particularly unsuited for resolution on summary judgment or a motion to dismiss because it is “quintessentially a question of fact. But courts may nonetheless dismiss claims where the alleged harassment “does not rise to the level necessary to state a hostile work environment claim under Title VII.
Title VII does not establish a general civility code for the workplace, so “run-of-the-mill boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior that is not uncommon in American workplaces is not the stuff of a Title VII hostile work environment claim. Moreover, simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, the standards for judging hostility will, when properly applied, filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing.
On consideration of the factual allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds them sufficient to state a plausible claim that Shannon suffered a hostile work environment while employed by Sunrooms. Sunrooms argues that the conduct alleged here does not rise above the sort of offhand comments and isolated incidents that fail to constitute a Title VII violation. To be sure, most of Shannon’s examples consist of boorish and juvenile statements. And the alleged physical incident was isolated—though humiliating. But she alleges that Durrett engaged in daily harassment and, taken with the withholding of Shannon’s bonuses, has plausibly alleged severe discrimination. Moreover, Durrett’s alleged behavior so permeated the office that Hainrihar instructed Shannon to advise new female hires to be wary of Durrett and would call her to ask about Durrett’s interactions with female employees. She has therefore alleged that the abusive environment altered the terms and conditions of her employment. Thus, Shannon describes circumstances that, viewed in the light most favorable to her, a reasonable person could find to be abusive.
Sunrooms also argues that Shannon only raises conclusory allegations that it knew of the discrimination. “[A]n employer is liable for a claim of hostile work environment only if it knew, or should have known, about the hostile work environment and failed to respond in an appropriate manner.” Shannon, however, specifically alleges that she (and other employees) reported Durrett’s behavior to Hainrihar, who did little to nothing in response. Shannon has therefore stated a claim for Title VII hostile work environment.
(Cleaned up.)
The court proceeded to hold that plaintiff likewise stated claims for constructive discharge and retaliation.