Alleged comments can’t support employee’s claim

Where a Black female employee alleged that coworkers touched her hair and a supervisor criticized it and made other offensive comments about it, her hostile work environment claim was dismissed because the allegations did not show conduct “because of” her sex or race or that the alleged conduct was severe or pervasive.

Background

Jamie Carroll alleges three counts against her employer, Amazon Data Services Inc., in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (1) discrimination on the basis of her race and sex; (2) retaliation (3) hostile work environment. Amazon has moved to dismiss Count Three.

Analysis

To state a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must allege workplace harassment that was: (1) unwelcome; (2) based on a protected characteristic; (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and to create an abusive work environment and (4) imputable to her employer.

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s opposition pleads facts from outside the complaint to support her hostile work environment claim. It is a well-settled principle that a plaintiff cannot draw upon additional facts beyond the complaint to oppose a motion to dismiss; therefore, the court will not consider those allegations for the purposes of this motion.

It is uncontested by defendant that plaintiff has alleged conduct that was unwelcome and imputable to the employer, satisfying the first and fourth prongs of the analysis. However, defendant asserts plaintiff has failed to satisfy the second and third prongs as she has not plausibly stated that the alleged conduct was based on a protected characteristic, either her race or her sex, and has failed to show the conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive as to change the conditions of her employment.

Because of

Plaintiff’s allegations of workplace harassment include a coworker “continuously touching her hair even after being asked by plaintiff to stop” and her male supervisor “constantly criti[cizing]” her afro-textured hair and encouraging her to cut or treat it so that she could “wear her bump cap properly.” Plaintiff also alleges that after she filed complaints with defendant’s human resources staff regarding the alleged discrimination and harassment, she was subjected to increased criticism, unfavorable job assignments and a performance improvement plan, or PIP.

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her supervisor’s critiques of her hair, although obviously unwelcomed and provocative, do not rise to the level of race-based or sex-based harassment that is protected under Title VII. While plaintiff contends that her white male coworkers did not receive the same criticisms regarding their bump caps, comparing the lack of criticism of coworkers alone is insufficient to establish a plausible basis for believing race or sex was the true basis for critiques.

Plaintiff also fails to allege any specific nexus between the alleged hair touching and her protected status, leaving the court to draw inferences as to how plaintiff intends to satisfy the second prong of the hostile work environment claim. The court is not obligated to “fill in the gaps” as to the basis for alleged discriminatory behavior. Although plaintiff has generally alleged that she was harassed because of her status as an African American and as a woman, these are conclusory allegations pleaded without factual support.

Severe or pervasive

Plaintiff’s allegations as to her coworkers’ touching of her hair, while troubling, and obviously not the best management of the workplace environment, fail to establish the amount of factual detail as to frequency and severity that is required to satisfy the severe and pervasive prong of a hostile work environment claim. Failure to plead at least modest details that would allow the court to assess the frequency and severity of allegedly harassing conduct can warrant dismissal of a hostile work environment claim. Nor do plaintiff’s allegations of increased criticism, unfavorable job assignments and a PIP necessarily amount to creating a hostile work environment.

Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss granted.

Carroll v. Amazon Data Services Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01177, Aug. 8, 2022. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 022-3-342. 13 pp.