In Thomas v. The Arbor Co., No. CV 26-CV-0149, 2026 WL 1329832 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
to plead a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) he suffered intentional discrimination because of membership in a protected class; (2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected him; (4) it would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person in like circumstances; and (5) a basis for employer liability is present. March Memorandum, 2026 WL 751897, at *3 (citing Starnes v. Butler Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, 971 F.3d 416, 428 (3d Cir. 2020) and Felder v. Penn Mfg. Indus., Inc., 303 F.R.D. 241, 243 (E.D. Pa. 2014)). In support of his hostile work environment claim, Thomas alleges he was “subjected to severe and pervasive harassment, including profanity, threats, and abusive conduct by both a coworker and a supervisor.” (Am. Compl. at 3.) He asserts, “[t]his conduct was unwelcome, based on discriminatory treatment, and was sufficiently severe to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” (Id.) He describes unpleasant interactions with various coworkers and supervisors, (see id. at 2-3), however as with his employment discrimination claim, Thomas makes no allegation that his mistreatment was related to his race or another protected characteristic. His hostile work environment claim is therefore not plausible and will be dismissed. See Oncale, 523 U.S. at 80; see also Wiggins v. Universal Prot. Servs. LLC, No. 22-1491, 2022 WL 4116912, at *3 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022) (per curiam) (“Wiggins did not state a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim, as he did not make factual allegations that could suggest that his workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult … that [was] sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working environment.”
Accordingly, dismissal was warranted.