In Lui v. Louis DeJoy, No. 3:21-CV-05030-BHS, 2026 WL 1045243 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In sum, plaintiff alleges that while working as the Shelton Postmaster, United States Postal Service (USPS) employees targeted her with false misconduct complaints because of her status as an “Asian Female Postmaster,” and that these complaints led to her position downgrade.
From the decision:
To establish a prima facie claim for hostile work environment, Lui must show that (1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct based on membership in a protected class; (2) the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment. Fried v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 18 F.4th 643, 647 (9th Cir. 2021). Offensive comments do not need to be made directly to the employee for a work environment to be considered hostile. Christian v. Umpqua Bank, 984 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir. 2020) (Where a “plaintiff becomes aware of harassing conduct directed at other persons, outside her presence, that conduct may form part of a hostile environment claim and must be considered.”); Woods v. Graphic Communications, 925 F.2d 1195, 1198, 1202 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive, even when plaintiff heard about most of the incidents through other employees).
…
[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lui, the Court concludes that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to both elements. At her deposition, Lui testified that her supervisor, Roberts, told her that employees had commented that she was “gay,” “too Chinese,” and referred to her as an “Asian bitch” and “witch.” Dkt. 23-2 at 6, 36. She also testified that Roberts told her that employees did not “want an Asian Postmaster in Shelton.” Id. at 7. DeJoy responds that those statements are inadmissible hearsayand lack the specific factual support necessary to prove her claim. Dkt. 80 at 18 n.3. However, Roberts was Lui’s direct supervisor and the individual who investigated allegations of her misconduct, modified her job responsibilities, and recommended her downgrade. Dkt. 83 at 8; Dkt. 26 at 4–5. Although the offensive comments were not made directly to Lui, they were relayed to her, and there remains a question of fact as to whether Roberts’ comments and actions constituted unlawful discrimination and contributed to a hostile work environment. See also Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) (Offensive comments do not need to be made directly to an employee for a work environment to be considered hostile.).
In addition, Lui does not rely on those statements alone. Lui testified that employees made comments directly to her about the way she spoke, including that they “didn’t understand Chinese-English,” Dkt. 46 at 23, and that the USPS Acting District Manager told her that “based on my Race that I should work on my communication skills,” Dkt. 27 at 6. Lui also asserts that the USPS employee assigned to investigate misconduct complaints against her also made derogatory remarks about her race. Lui testified that, during one investigation, she was “subjected to a humiliating interview” in which she was asked whether she “had some personal or intimate relationship with…Roberts,” which she attributed to the investigator’s knowledge that Roberts was married to an Asian woman. Dkt. 27 at 3. Roberts testified that he also received comments from employees asking if he was married to Lui “or engaged in a sexual relationship.” Dkt. 26 at 4. According to Roberts, the employees made these comments “because [they] knew that I was married to an Asian woman.” Id. Racial and sexist remarks such as these are evidence of a hostile work environment. See Lelaind v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (observing that the “type of actions typical of hostile work environment claims” might involve, for example, “racial slurs, sexist remarks, [and] racially or sexually derogatory acts.”). A reasonable juror could find that, based on this evidence, Lui was targeted with complaints because of her race, gender, and national origin.
In addition, there is also a question of fact as to whether the conduct was severe and pervasive. To qualify as severe and pervasive, the working environment must both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive; that is, Lui must show that “she perceived her work environment to be hostile, and that a reasonable person in her position would perceive it to be so.” Dominguez–Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2005). In making this determination, the Court considers all the circumstances, “including 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.” Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 270–71 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “ ‘Simple teasing,’ offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.’ ” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (citation omitted).
DeJoy argues that Lui’s allegations do not meet the “Ninth Circuit’s high bar for ‘severe and pervasive conduct.’ ” For support, he relies on Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 796–98 (9th Cir. 2003). There, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff’s coworkers’ behavior amounted to “simple teasing” and “offhand comments” when they referred to the plaintiff as a “China man,” ridiculed him for mispronouncing “Lima,” and pulled their eyes back with their fingers to imitate or mock the appearance of Asians. Id. at 798. The Ninth Circuit explained that the “regrettable incidents occurring over a span of two-and-a-half years, coupled with other offhand remarks,” did not so pollute the workplace that it altered the conditions of her employment. Id. at 799.
Unlike Manatt, Lui does not allege that the comments alone created a hostile work environment. Rather, she argues that the comments are evidence that the repeated misconduct complaints against her and management’s conclusory and inadequate investigations were motivated by her race or gender. The Court agrees. To overcome a summary judgment motion for an employment discrimination claim such as this, Lui need produce “very little evidence.” Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1124. This is because “ ‘the ultimate question is one that can only be resolved through a searching inquiry—one that is most appropriately conducted by a factfinder, upon a full record.’ ” Id. (quoting Schnidrig, 80 F.3d at 1410).
Lui has met her burden. Lui and Roberts both testified that USPS employees repeatedly made derogatory comments about Lui’s race and gender. Notably, these comments were not limited to those employees that Lui supervised herself but also extended to the investigator, her immediate supervisor, and the acting district manager. A reasonable juror could find that the entire investigatory process was tainted by discriminatory bias. In addition, the complaints resulted in actual employment consequences, including changes to her job responsibilities, multiple reassignments, and her eventual downgrade. Based on this evidence, a reasonable juror could find that Lui suffered harassment so severe or pervasive that it altered the conditions of her employment.
Accordingly, since the court found that there are genuine factual disputes as to multiple elements of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was warranted.