In Cato v. Mission Rock Residential, LLC, No. CV ELH-25-3703, 2026 WL 1745726 (D. Md. June 17, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff failed to state a claim of hostile work environment on the basis of her sexual orientation, gender identity, or transgender status under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
To determine whether plaintiff has adequately pleaded a hostile work environment claim, the Court must consider the entire constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships in the workplace. Here, the offensive conversation took place at a restaurant connected to the office. Notably, allegedly offensive conduct that occurs outside of work mitigates the finding of severe conduct that creates an abusive working environment. Furthermore, the use of the word “ghetto” on only one occasion does not amount to a workplace that is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. And, an allegation of increased monitoring of plaintiff, paired with an assertion that plaintiff was called “ghetto”, is not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff has not specified the race or sex of the other employees who were permitted to post pictures on Instagram.
The only sex-based comments plaintiff alleges are two comments by Hamilton: (1) the June 2023 remark, in which Hamilton told plaintiff that in Jamaica, plaintiff’s lifestyle was considered sinful, and she was going to hell for her lifestyle, referring to her gender identity and sexual orientation, and (2) a comment in mid-October 2023 when Hamilton told Cato certain tasks should be done by a man. All the other conduct plaintiff alleges regarding Cato and Hamilton, such as marking up Cato’s emails with red ink, or rescinding an offer to give plaintiff a ride to a company event, smack of the personal slights and rudeness that can make a work environment unpleasant, but do not provide the basis for a hostile work environment claim. Indeed, mere rude or insensitive treatment cannot sustain a hostile work environment claim, nor can sporadic rude language or offhand comments.
Accordingly, the court dismissed this claim without prejudice and with leave to amend.