In Villalobos v. Basis Educational Group LLC, No. CV-20-00850-PHX-DJH, 2022 WL 3647832 (D.Ariz. Aug. 24, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of race-based hostile work environment asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
From the decision:
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Campbell’s [plaintiff’s former supervisor] statements and conduct include: (1) calling African Americans “angry, hostile and aggressive[,]” (2) stating that she was trying to “catch” African American students doing something wrong while she monitored security cameras, (3) stating that she kept a “watch list” of “potential terrorists” of Muslim students, (4) calling Plaintiff an “illegal immigrant[.]”
The parties dispute whether racial comments directed toward other people can give rise to a hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff argues that “discriminatory comments and conduct not personally directed at an employee” may serve as a basis for a hostile work environment claim. Defendant argues that Plaintiff must show she suffered harassing verbal or physical conduct because of her race.
The case of Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Products is instructive. 847 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 2017). There, the Ninth Circuit found that a jury could find that a slew of alleged “explicit racial and national comments” referencing both the plaintiff’s race and other races, “would be highly offensive and demeaning to anyone,” including the plaintiff. Id. at 687–88. The Court, therefore, finds that comments involving both Plaintiff’s race and the race of others can serve as the basis for a hostile work environment claim.
In so finding, the Court acknowledges Defendant’s citation to Manatt v. Bank of America, NA, in which the Ninth Circuit stated that a hostile work environment claim must show the comments and conduct must be made “because of [a plaintiff’s] race….” 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003). But this statement of the claim’s elements was narrowly tailored to the facts of the case, and subsequent decisions form the Ninth Circuit have not repeated the elements in this way.
[Cleaned up.]
The court rejected defendant’s argument that these incidents were “incidents of rudeness or insensitivity” that cannot give rise to an actionable hostile work environment claim, noting that while . Certainly, the Court is aware that rude and insensitive behavior may not give rise to a hostile work environment. Here, however, there are sufficient instances of comments and conduct such that a reasonable jury could find a hostile work environment.