In Rains v. Hung Cao, Acting Secretary of the Navy, No. 3:25-CV-717-CAB-MMP, 2026 WL 1653487 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
To state a hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment, Plaintiff must allege: (1) that she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature; (2) that the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive work environment. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit considers whether the earlier and later events amounted to the same type of employment actions, occurred relatively frequently, or were perpetrated by the same managers.
Plaintiff sufficiently pleads sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment. As aforementioned, Plaintiff alleges that Conley sexually harassed her by groping and fondling her in September 2023, and that she notified an EEO counselor on September 26, 2023; thus at least one act falls within the statutory time period. Plaintiff’s pre-August 12, 2023 sexual harassment allegations include Conley forcing Plaintiff to perform certain sexual acts, sending her unsolicited sexual pictures, masturbating in her presence, and more.
These allegations involve the same perpetrator (Conley) engaged in the same type of unwanted, abusive conduct (groping, sexual assault, sexual propositioning, etc.), with substantial frequency, both before and after August 12, 2023. These allegations describe the kind of continuous, abusive conduct that [case law] contemplate[s].
The Court is mindful of the Porter court’s admonition to not blur to the point of oblivion the dichotomy between discrete acts and a hostile environment. But Plaintiff’s allegations do not attempt to improperly revive discrete acts of sexual harassment that occurred outside the 45-day window; instead, they allege a continuous pattern of harassment by a single supervisor with one of the constituent acts timely raised with an EEO counselor.
(Citations omitted; cleaned up.)
Based on this, the court found that plaintiff sufficiently pleads sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, and thus that denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim was warranted.