In Bravard v. Barth Electric Co. Inc., No. 1:24-CV-02228-SEB-MG, 2026 WL 1388711 (S.D. Ind. May 18, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As to whether the conduct was objectively hostile, the court explained:
Here, the videos taken by Ms. Bravard do not provide conclusive evidence supporting her interpretation of what they depict. A reasonably jury viewing them could conclude, as Barth Electric did, that they depict Mr. B.P.’s efforts to alleviate his carpel tunnel symptoms by shaking his arm. A reasonable jury could also find that the conduct depicted in the videos more closely aligns with Ms. Bravard’s interpretation, particularly if they credit her testimony that B.P. would “zip up his pants” in front of her, that she heard sounds of pornography emanating from B.P.’s office “from time to time” during these episodes, and that “more times than not” she observed B.P. staring at her over his computer screen while engaged in these movements. However, the arm movements captured therein are at the very least “ambiguous,” as Barth Electric characterizes them. If Ms. Bravard’s interpretation is true, a co-worker’s persistent and repeated masturbation and/or simulation of masturbation, occurring multiple times per day over several months and often accompanied by the sounds of pornography and intentional eye contact, would be both pervasive and sufficiently severe to be objectively offensive. See, e.g., Davis v. Packer Engineering, Inc., No. 11-cv-07923, 2018 WL 1784131 (Apr. 12, 2018) (holding that jury had legally sufficient basis to find for a plaintiff on hostile work environment claim that was “supported primarily by evidence that she heard and saw a male co-worker watching pornography and masturbating in his glass-walled office during the work day, over the course of many months and often several times a day” and that the jury was entitled to weigh conflicting evidence showing that the co-worker may not have actually been masturbating against the plaintiff’s credibility, coupled with videos and photographs of the conduct).
(Cleaned up.)
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff satisfied her burden to establish that a reasonable jury could conclude that her work environment was objectively hostile.
Plaintiff’s claim faltered, however, at the next step of the analysis, as plaintiff failed to establish a basis for employer liability. While plaintiff argued that defendant’s response to her sexual harassment complaint was unreasonable the court declined to hold, as a matter of law, that the company acted negligently in response to her allegations.