In Perez v. Saltz, Mongeluzzi, & Bendesky, P.C., No. CV 25-2107, 2026 WL 2033187 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted 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:
Plaintiff alleges a hostile work environment based on the following: First, from May to June 2023, Kilmer (1) “regularly summoned Plaintiff to her office under the pretext of reviewing completed assignments” but would instead discuss Kilmer’s “personal life and appearance;” (2) “regularly sought validation about her looks” and shared details about her romantic life; (3) pressured her to attend an event multiple times in one day, stated “we look cute together,” and warned Plaintiff that she “better not bail” on her or stand her up, followed by seventeen emails and multiple texts asking whether Plaintiff would attend; and (4) weeks later, telling Plaintiff: “you look cute.” ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 40-47, 54.2 Second, one month after Plaintiff reported Kilmer, HR informed Plaintiff of an anonymous report that she was dating her supervisor. Id. ¶¶ 55, 58-61. Third, one week later, a paralegal emailed Plaintiff stating that she “throws others under the bus.” Id. ¶ 62. These facts are not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
Frequency: The “frequency” of the conduct supports Plaintiff’s claim. Unlike the sporadic comments in Nitkin, the conduct Plaintiff alleges regularly occurred over two months, including multiple times in one day. 67 F.4th at 571. Moreover, the HR investigation and the paralegal’s email occurred just one month after Plaintiff reported Kilmer. ECF No. 1 ¶ 55-62. However, taking her Complaint as a whole, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support any other factor under the totality test.
Severity: Kilmer’s conduct, while inappropriate, is not severe. Kilmer’s statements were less severe or humiliating than the “mere offensive utterances” in Nitkin. 67 F.4th at 568 (in one-on-one and group settings, superior discussed sexual relationship with his wife and other women, described his sex and pornography addiction, told plaintiff that a male patient “would really like” to be alone with her, and remarked that women could “get anything they want” through sex).
In discussing her dating life and pressuring Plaintiff to attend an event, Kilmer may have “inappropriately veered into” her personal life. Sousa, 2023 WL 7486751, at *3. However, that does not amount to more than “poor taste” below the requisite level of severity. Id. Similarly, even when combined with the above facts, the paralegal’s email is likely a “mere offensive utterance” akin to the email calling the plaintiff “rude” in Brooks, 2025 WL 3210349, at *6.
Physically Threatening/Humiliating: Unlike the racial slur accompanied by the threat of termination in Castleberry, Kilmer’s comments were not so threatening or humiliating as to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. 863 F.3d at 265. Kilmer warned Plaintiff not to stand her up or “bail on” her, but she did not threaten physical contact or termination. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 45-46.
Unreasonably Interferes with Work Performance: Plaintiff’s allegations here fall short. Plaintiff alleges that the harassment and HR investigation “unreasonably interfered” with her job performance because she suffered emotional distress, took medical leave, and resigned, and “any reasonable person” would be similarly impacted. ECF No. 13 at 14-15. However, unlike the HR Department that “shamed” the plaintiff for reporting harassment in Marquis, Defendant freely informed Plaintiff that her managing attorney denied a romantic relationship and provided Plaintiff the opportunity to do the same. 2026 WL 711802, at *1. Moreover, “a sexually objectionable environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive,” and Plaintiff fails to allege an objectively offensive environment. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 775.
Totality of the Circumstances: Certainly, Plaintiff was subjectively offended. However, under the totality of the circumstances, her Complaint fails to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal objectively severe or pervasive conduct.
Accordingly, the court held that dismissal was warranted. And, since plaintiff’s Complaint does not plausibly allege severe or pervasive conduct, the Court does not reach the issue of respondeat superior liability.