Hostile Work Environment Claim Dismissed; Unpleasantness Was Unrelated to Protected Characteristics

From McMahon v. Tomkins County, 16-CV-922, 2017 WL 4443884 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2017) (J. Hurd):

In determining whether a plaintiff suffered a hostile work environment, [a court] must consider the totality of the circumstances, including ‘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.”’ Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 321 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23).

At the outset, it is recognized that “a hostile work environment claim is treated as a continuing violation and treated as timely if one act contributing to the claim occurred within the 300-day period ….” Baroor v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 362 F. App’x 157, 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order). Accordingly, the otherwise-untimely allegations set forth in plaintiff’s pleading will be considered in evaluating the plausibility of a hostile work environment claim.3

Yet even considering McMahon’s time-barred allegations, any hostile work environment claim must fail. Merely pleading a series of generally unpleasant, undesirable, or even harmful behavior is insufficient; rather, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the hostile work environment at issue was created because of one or more of protected characteristics. See Robinson v. Harvard Prot. Servs., 495 F. App’x 140, 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (reiterating the causal requirement for hostile work environment claims)

As with the discrimination claim set forth above, McMahon repeatedly details instances in which she was subjected to increased or unfair scrutiny and marginal or unfavorable treatment. But there is no evidence that any of this mistreatment was causally related to any characteristic protected by the anti-discrimination laws. Accordingly, any hostile work environment claim must be dismissed.

Share This: