In Osinubi v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. et al, No. 1:25-CV-12262-JEK, 2026 WL 986193 (D. Mass. Apr. 13, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim.
From the decision:
A hostile work environment is one that is “ ‘pervaded by harassment or abuse, with the resulting intimidation, humiliation, and stigmatization, [and that] poses a formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace.’ ” Cuddyer, 434 Mass. at 532 (quoting College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1987)). While “many incidents in isolation may not be serious enough for [a] complaint,” “when linked together, the seemingly disparate incidents may show a prolonged and compelling pattern of mistreatment.” Id. at 532-33.
To make a prima facie case, Osinubi must allege: “(1) that [she] is a member of a protected class; (2) that [she] was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment was based upon [race or sex]; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an abusive work environment; (5) that objectionable conduct was both objectively and subjectively offensive, such that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive and the victim in fact did perceive it to be so; and (6) that some basis for employer liability has been established.” Garmon v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 844 F.3d 307, 317 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Though the conduct may be both severe and pervasive, “only one of the qualities must be proved in order to prevail.” Flood v. Bank of Am. Corp., 780 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2015).
Sanofi contends that Osinubi’s allegations do not describe harassment so severe or pervasive to impact her employment in any material way. The Court disagrees: the amended complaint alleges persistent demeaning treatment during Osinubi’s tenure at Sanofi. She was repeatedly denied training and career advancement opportunities. ECF 7, ¶¶ 23, 28. When she applied for a promotion, she was subjected to a harsher interview process than her non-Black colleagues. Id. ¶¶ 26-27; ECF 18, at 23-24. She was sidelined in multiple marketing meetings and consistently excluded from team events and recognition. ECF 7, ¶¶ 35-37, 43-47, 49, 52-53, 55; see Clifton v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 445 Mass. 611, 616 n.5 (2005) (hostile work environment may manifest by “a series of harassing acts” likening to “pinpricks [that] only slowly add up to a wound” (citation omitted)). At one point, Schaffnit removed Osinubi’s access to his calendar, making it impossible for her to fulfill a primary job responsibility. ECF 7, ¶¶ 45-47. Considering all the circumstances, Osinubi plausibly alleges pervasive harassment that altered the terms or conditions of her employment.
Sanofi also contends that Osinubi has not connected the mistreatment to her race or sex. While the amended complaint states only conclusory allegations that the harassment was based on sex, it does sufficiently allege a hostile work environment based on race. Osinubi was subjected to unusually rigorous interview requirements not imposed on her non-Black colleagues. ECF 7, ¶ 27; ECF 8, at 23-25. As the sole Black woman on her marketing and launch team, she was frequently excluded from events and marginalized. ECF 7, ¶¶ 35-40, 52-53. And even if not all acts were motivated by race, Osinubi has plausibly alleged that the harassment as a whole was because of her race. See Jackson v. Quanex Corp., 191 F.3d 647, 662 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[E]ven though a certain action may not have been specifically racial in nature, it may contribute to the plaintiff’s proof of a hostile work environment if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the plaintiff was African American.”).
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff’s race-based hostile work environment claim will continue.