In Hines v. Leafguard Holdings Inc., No. 25-CV-00306-LKG, 2026 WL 776078 (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2026), the court, inter alia, the court declined to dismiss plaintiff’s race- and sex-based hostile work environment claims asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
After dismissing plaintiff’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act discrimination claim, the court proceeded to evaluate plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims:
LeafGuard’s argument in support of dismissing the Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims in Counts II and III of the amended complaint is less convincing. To state a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, the Plaintiff “must offer facts that plausibly support inferences that ‘she was subjected to (1) unwelcome conduct, (2) based on her race [or national origin] or sex, that was (3) severe or pervasive enough to make her work environment hostile or abusive and (4) imputable to [ ] her employer.’ ” Marie Laurent-Workman v. Wormuth, 54 F.4th 201, 211 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bazemore v. Best Buy, 957 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2020)). The Plaintiff must also allege that her protected characteristic under Title VII was the “but for” cause of the alleged harassment. Id.; see also Young v. Giant Food Stores, LLC, 108 F. Supp. 3d 301, 310 (D. Md. 2015) (finding that the plaintiff must also allege facts to present a particularized basis for alleging that discriminatory conduct was because of membership in a protected class). In addition, the Plaintiff must show that she administratively exhausted her hostile work environment claims before bringing this civil action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (Title VII requires that a plaintiff file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before filing suit in this Court.).
The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has met these requirements for two reasons. First, the Plaintiff has shown that she administratively exhausted her hostile work environment claims, because the Plaintiff’s Charge put LeafGuard on notice of her concerns about Mr. Gentry-Coyler’s alleged discriminatory conduct. Miles v. Dell, Inc., 429 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2005). The Plaintiff filed her Charge with the EEOC on February 3, 2023. ECF No. 18 at ¶ 6. In the Charge, the Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to discrimination upon the basis of her race, color, sex and pregnancy and to retaliation. See generally id.; ECF No. 29 at 4. The Plaintiff also states in the Charge that,
From the moment [Mr. Gentry-Coyler] became the General Manager in July, I was subjected to numerous racist and sexist remarks and gestures from [Mr. Gentry-Coyler]….At first I was hesitant to disclose my pregnancy to [LeafGuard] because there had been a recent history of sexist and racist commentary from [Mr. Gentry-Coyler].
In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff similarly alleges that Mr. Gentry began to subject her to racist and sexist remarks and gestures shortly after he became the General Manager for LeafGuard’s Washington, DC branch in July 2022, and that this harassing conduct continued until her termination. The Plaintiff also alleges in the amended complaint that Mr. Gentry-Coyler: (1) engaged in discriminatory conduct “at a job site, while [the Plaintiff] was carrying a ladder,…[and] commented ‘women can’t do that’ ”; (2) “expressed incredulity about a Black female being in the construction industry”; and (3) “told other employees [that the Plaintiff’s ] first name, LaRecia, was a ‘black ghetto name.’ ” Id. In addition, the Plaintiff states that the aforementioned conduct is only an example of the ongoing discriminatory conduct by Mr. Gentry-Coyler during the summer and fall of 2022.
While the Plaintiff’s Charge neither contains the words “hostile work environment,” nor these specific factual allegations discussed above, the Court is satisfied that these claims could have been discovered by LeafGuard through a reasonable investigation of the Plaintiff’s Charge. Garcia v. Baltimore Police Dep’t, No. 22-1423, 2023 WL 3043953, at *5 (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2023) (while “[c]ourts do not require a plaintiff to have invoked a hostile work environment claim by name or to use specific ‘magic words’ in order to exhaust it…the plaintiff must offer at least some suggestion of a hostile work environment in the charge narrative, such as by referring to an ongoing pattern of conduct or describing a workplace pervaded by abuse.” And so, the Plaintiff has administratively exhausted her hostile work environment claims.
Second, the Court is also satisfied that the Plaintiff states plausible claims for a hostile work environment in the amended complaint. As discussed above, to state a hostile work environment claim, the Plaintiff “must offer facts that plausibly support inferences that ‘she was subjected to (1) unwelcome conduct, (2) based on her race [or national origin] or sex, that was (3) severe or pervasive enough to make her work environment hostile or abusive and (4) imputable to [ ] her employer.’ ” In this regard, the Court considers 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.” Id. at 211. The Plaintiff must also allege that her protected characteristic under Title VII was the “but for” cause of the alleged harassment. Id. at 200.
Here, the amended complaint makes clear that the Plaintiff alleges facts to show that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct, because she alleges that “at a job site, while [the Plaintiff] was carrying a ladder,…[and] commented ‘women can’t do that’ ”; (2) “expressed incredulity about a Black female being in the construction industry”; and (3) “told other employees [that the Plaintiff’s ] first name, LaRecia, was a ‘black ghetto name.’ ” In addition, the Plaintiff states that the aforementioned conduct is only an example of the ongoing comments made by Mr. Gentry-Coyler during the summer and fall of 2022. The Plaintiff also alleges facts to show that Mr. Gentry-Coyler’s unwelcome conduct was based on her race, color and/or sex, because she alleges that the examples and ongoing comments were made in particular to her being Black and a woman.
In addition, the Plaintiff alleges facts to show that the conduct at issue was severe or pervasive enough to make her work environment hostile or abusive, because she alleges that the racist and sexist remarks started from when Mr. Gentry-Coyler became the General Manager and continued after she confronted Mr. Gentry-Coyler regarding the racist and sexist remarks and continued after the alleged retaliation from Mr. Gentry-Coyler. Lastly, the Plaintiff alleges facts to show that the conduct was imputable to LeafGuard, because she alleges that Mr. Gentry-Coyler was her supervisor at LeafGuard and LeafGuard was made known of the conduct.
(Cleaned up.)
Accordingly, dismissal of these claims was not warranted.