A Pennsylvania federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme who alleged sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. The employee, Peter Nyamu, claimed his supervisor whispered in his ear during a staff meeting, which he interpreted as sexual harassment. The court ruled that the single incident lacked sexual intent and was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment.
Nyamu was reassigned after being found responsible for multiple contamination incidents in sterile areas. He alleged the reassignment and denial of overtime were retaliatory, but the judge found no unlawful conduct to support the claim.
Nyamu's harassment complaint stemmed from a July 2021 staff meeting during which Nyamu claimed his supervisor got close to his ear and whispered "he was surprised he had skipped him since Mr. Nyamu's voice is so distinctive." While Nyamu described the interaction as sexual harassment, the judge said the isolated incident was not serious enough to amount to harassment and did not appear to be related to his sex. Although Nyamu contended that it was inappropriate to call his voice distinctive because he is of African descent, the judge noted he did not raise a claim for racial harassment.
The court granted summary judgment to the employer, concluding that Nyamu's claims did not meet the legal standards required under Title VII.
Similar to this Pennsylvania action, California case law has held that "[o]ccasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial" acts are usually not enough to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile work environment. Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1043 (2009). Likewise, the Ninth Circuit has found that "simple teasing" and "offhand comments" are not actionable. Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003). To sustain a claim, a sexually objectionable environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive. In other words, it must be one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the plaintiff did in fact find to be so. The court will examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a hostile work environment exists, including the frequency of the alleged conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or a mere offensive utterance and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Also critical to the inquiry is whether the alleged harasser is a supervisory or non-supervisory employee, and if the latter, whether the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and took corrective action.
Defending against harassment and hostile work environment claims in California involves multistep analyses. If appropriate, a motion for summary judgment or adjudication can be a powerful tool to dispose of the claims and narrow the issues in the case.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
