In Franks v. Edison Electric Institute, 20-cv-3393, 2022 WL 971157 (D.D.C. March 31, 2022), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.
It explained:
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims are all rooted in Plaintiff’s relationship with her supervisor, Kathy Steckelberg, and the actions Steckelberg took against her. Franks points to, for example, Steckelberg’s removing her from a project in favor of a white colleague and giving her progressively less favorable reviews and ratings. But poor performance reviews and being removed from assignments do not generally constitute sufficient facts for a hostile work environment claim to survive summary judgment. See Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1195, 1201 (affirming summary judgment where the plaintiff faced numerous disciplinary infractions, including suspension and poor reviews). Plaintiff also complains about Steckelberg’s increasing criticism and scrutiny of her performance over the course of the spring and summer of 2019, including a harsh exchange in which Steckelberg yelled at Plaintiff for not alerting her to an impending deadline for draft congressional testimony. Pl.’s Opp’n, Pl.’s Resps. to Def.’s Stmt. of Facts, ECF No. 21-2 [hereinafter Pl.’s SOF], ¶¶ 86–88. Similar complaints have been rejected as rising to the level of a hostile work environment. See Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1195, 1999 (finding no hostile work environment with repeated yelling and threats of arrest); Gray v. Foxx, 637 F. App’x 603, 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that yelling and screaming is not enough for a hostile work environment); Tillman v. Barr, No. 17-cv-475 (APM), 2019 WL 2550736, at *5 (D.D.C. June 20, 2019) (finding no hostile work environment even with aggressive yelling).
Tellingly, Plaintiff says the “the most hostile” treatment she received was Steckelberg’s silent treatment after EEI had given notice of its intent to terminate her employment. Notice of Filing Exs., ECF No. 17 [hereinafter Exhibit Notice], Ex. 3, Jessica Franks Dep. Tr. Excerpts, ECF No. 17-4 [hereinafter Franks Dep.], at 314. But Plaintiff cites no case to support an argument that post-termination awkwardness—particularly when Plaintiff, soon after receiving EEI’s termination notice, had retained counsel to advance her discrimination claims—constitutes anything other than “less-than-ideal working conditions.” Tobey v. U.S. Gen. Servs. Admin., 480 F. Supp. 3d 155, 172 (D.D.C. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The court concluded, based on this, that plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims cannot escape summary judgment in defendant’s favor.