In Rogers-Walker v. Brivo, Inc., No. TJS-25-3213, 2026 WL 2275654 (D. Md. Aug. 6, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
A plaintiff’s “[w]orking conditions form a hostile work environment when they are ‘permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ that ‘alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Laurent-Workman v. Wormuth, 54 F.4th 201, 210 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22 (1993)). At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff “must offer facts that plausibly support inferences that ‘she was subjected to (1) unwelcome conduct, (2) based on her race [or national origin] or sex, that was (3) severe or pervasive enough to make her work environment hostile or abusive and (4) imputable to [ ] her employer.’ ” Id. (quoting Bazemore v. Best Buy, 957 F.3d 195, 200 (4th Cir. 2020)). And “[s]he must also allege that her protected characteristic under Title VII was the ‘but for’ cause of the alleged harassment.” Id.
Plaintiff’s only hostile work environment claim that is even potentially timely alleges that
[t]he Defendant kept Mrs. Rogers-Walker in her role while assigning her the duties of her departed superior without compensating her commensurate to him. The Defendant then arranged a sham interview to further harass her. The Defendant instructed her to transition her accounts, then attempted to intimidate her with legal action for transitioning her accounts. Finally, the Defendant failed to pay her for her commission and bonuses under the revised Commission Agreement.
ECF No. 1 at 18. Plaintiff does not plausibly allege, and offers no facts from which it could be inferred, that this conduct was severe or pervasive.When considering “whether the alleged working conditions are severe or pervasive enough to support a Title VII claim” courts consider the “frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” See Laurent-Workman, 54 F.4th at 211 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Okoli v. City of Balt., 648 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir. 2011)).
The court concluded that “[p]laintiff’s claim involves unfavorable personnel decisions and the uncomfortable aftermath of those decisions. This is not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim, which typically encompasses intimidation, ridicule, insults, humiliation, and physically threatening conduct.”