Labor & Employment – Sex Discrimination – Hostile Environment Claim – ‘But for’ Plaintiff’s Sex

Even if the male defendants made unwelcome comments to the male plaintiff on a frequent basis, and even if defendant Grady exposed himself to plaintiff on a number of occasions, plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to show that acts committed against him would not have been made “but for” his being male.

The court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Title VII claim. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

The complaint does not sufficiently allege that defendants would treat similarly situated females differently, or other specific facts that would allow the court to reasonably infer that defendants’ conduct was motivated by plaintiff’s sex. Instead, plaintiff generally asserts a hostile work environment and relies on the fact that defendants “made similar comments and suggestions . . . to Berry and to other male employees.” Such general assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to sustain an actionable Title VII claim.

Even if the court were to infer defendants’ actions were “earnest sexual solicitations,” defendants’ conduct is not actionable because it is not severe or pervasive. Plaintiff generally asserts that defendant Grady exposed himself “on a number of earlier occasions,” and defendant Fields made sexual comments on “a frequent basis.” Plaintiff’s allegations are too general to support plaintiff’s claim of harassment.

Plaintiff has alleged two specific instances in which defendants made crude sexual statements, and generally alleged defendants engaged in other crude behavior around the workplace. While no one condones boorishness, there is a line between what can justifiably be called sexual harassment and what is merely crude behavior. The acts alleged by plaintiff are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute sexual harassment.

Because the acts committed by defendant were not motivated by his sex, and alternatively the acts alleged by plaintiff are not severe or pervasive, the court dismisses plaintiff’s Title VII claims against defendants.

Motion granted.

Berry v. Southern States Cooperative, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-010-18, 7 pp.) (Louise Flanagan, J.) 5:17-cv-00635. Glenn Barfield for plaintiff; Molly McIntosh Jagannathan and Sara Salehi Ash for defendants. E.D.N.C.