In Eberra v. Walmart Associates, Inc. et al, No. 25-2307-DDC-ADM, 2026 WL 555378 (D. Kan. Feb. 27, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliatory hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
From the decision:
The court thus starts by determining whether plaintiff has stated a plausible retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim. Concluding that he has, the court then explains the specific facts that plaintiff has alleged against Carter, Mohammed, and Jesmore. For each defendant, the court assesses whether plaintiff has alleged a sufficient affirmative link between the defendant’s conduct and the retaliatory hostile work environment.
Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Complaint plausibly alleges that plaintiff suffered a hostile work environment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity. Plaintiff alleges that defendants gave him unfavorable assignments and shifts; disparaged him publicly; threatened to fire him; reprimanded him for errors caused by his coworkers; and held “whites only” meetings that excluded him. Cumulatively, these allegations plausibly might dissuade a reasonable worker from filing a charge of discrimination. See Adcox, 2017 WL 2405326, at *8 (concluding that evidence that defendant subjected plaintiff to heightened scrutiny, criticized her over minor flaws in the presence of coworkers, denied leave requests, interrupted breaks, and threw mail at her was sufficient to survive summary judgment on retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim); Wilson v. Mercury Mgmt., LLC, No. 23-2245-KHV, 2023 WL 6961987, at *4 (D. Kan. Oct. 20, 2023) (finding allegation that “plaintiff experienced unequal job assignments and unequal application of policies and rules” sufficient to survive motion to dismiss).
The court thus concluded that, at this early stage of these proceedings, plaintiff’s allegations suffice, and state a plausible § 1981 retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim.
It then proceeded to deny 3 individual defendants’ motions to dismiss claims against them, finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that they “played a substantial role” in creating a hostile work environment.