Judge upholds hostile work environment claim

• Published date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30826
• Date: 01 August 2020

AUGUST 2020 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

11

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

with excessively controlling behavior and open crit-

icism of her efforts.

The defendant led a motion to dismiss the suit,

arguing that the incidents alleged by the plaintiff

didn’t amount to a hostile work environment.

The District Court judge said the plaintiff was

required to sufciently plead facts that plausibly im-

plied that the purported conduct: (1) was unwelcome,

(2) resulted because of a perceived disability, (3) was

sufciently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions

of employment and (4) could be blamed on the state.

The judge also said the plaintiff was required to

establish that (1) she subjectively believed the work-

place environment was abusive and hostile and (2)a

reasonable person would share that opinion. She

explained that an assessment about whether a rea-

sonable person would regard the alleged employment

environment as hostile or abusive required courts to

consider the frequency of the discriminatory conduct,

its severity, whether it was physically threatening or

humiliating and whether it unreasonably interfered

with the plaintiff’s work performance.

The judge then ruled that open criticism of work

performance was the same thing as a disagreement

with the decisions or management style of a boss and

simply didn’t rise to the level of a hostile workplace.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ She acknowledged that

the plaintiff might subjectively feel that her supervi-

sor had behaved in a rude, intrusive and unwelcome

manner, but ruled there were no factual allegations

to support the proposition that such a feeling was

objectively reasonable.

She also cited an earlier case that had been dis-

missed when a supervisor allegedly: (1) yelled at an

employee, (2) called her “stupid,” (3) refused to com-

municate with her, (3) harassed her almost daily, (4)

told her she was incompetent, (5) pushed her down in

her chair and (6) blocked the door to prevent the em-

ployee from leaving while he continued to yell at her.

The judge stated there wasn’t anything in the

plaintiff’s complaint suggesting that the supervisor

behaved as she did because of a perception that the

plaintiff was disabled. She also ruled it was insuf-

cient that the supervisor purportedly told an admin-

istrator that the plaintiff had mental health issues

because there were no allegations connecting that one

incident with the alleged mistreatment.

[Phillips v. State of Maryland, et al., U.S. District

Court for the District of Maryland, No. 8:19-cv-

00653, 12/11/2020].

Religious discrimination

Judge upholds hostile work

environment claim

The plaintiff—an equipment operator instructor

for the New York State Department of Transporta-

tion—converted to the Islamic faith in 2014.

Consistent with his religion, the plaintiff began

wearing a Muslim skullcap known as a “ku” in 2016.

He wore it during work while praying; he also wore

it inside several DOT facilities when he visited them

as part of his job.

After the plaintiff retired in 2018, he led a suit

claiming religious discrimination and several viola-

tions of Title VII.

One of his claims was a hostile work environment.

The plaintiff alleged various employees ridiculed his

religion by: (1) making derogatory remarks about his

ku, (2) saying Muslims were unclean, (3) claiming

Muslims were terrorists, (4) interrupting his prayers,

(5) making mocking gestures about his prayers, (6)

joking about his religion and (7) posting threats on

Facebook about his faith.

The defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment.

The defendant rst argued that the alleged inci-

dents were insignicant.

The plaintiff responded that “being forced to work

in an environment in which one is humiliated for

wearing a religious cap, or harassed and outwardly

taunted because of his religious beliefs” could con-

stitute a hostile work environment.

The District Court judge accepted the plaintiff’s

testimony that he had subjectively perceived the en-

vironment to be abusive and that belief caused him

extreme anxiety.

He also noted that the plaintiff didn’t spend his

time in a conventional ofce setting, and said there

was evidence of repeated abuse at various DOT fa-

cilities by several employees.

Considering the severity and frequency of the pur-

ported abuse, the judge ruled that an objective juror

could nd it altered the conditions of his employment

for the worse.

The defendant next argued that the plaintiff hadn’t

proven it knew about the misconduct and failed to

take adequate corrective action. It also contended (1)

the plaintiff only complained a few times, (2) those

complaints were immediately addressed and (3) the

incident complained about never happened again.

The District Court judge agreed the plaintiff was