hostile work environment claim in Maine

2018In evaluating a hostile work environment claim, "the trier of fact" must evaluate "all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Id 123 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Blake v. State, 2005 ME 32, 19 , 868 A.2d 234 ("When analyzing a hostile work environment claim, the court must detem1ine whether the environment was subjectively abusive to the employee, and, in addition, w

2018In evaluating a hostile work environment claim, "the trier of fact" must evaluate "all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Id 123 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Blake v. State, 2005 ME 32, 19 , 868 A.2d 234 ("When analyzing a hostile work environment claim, the court must detem1ine whether the environment was subjectively abusive to the employee, and, in addition, w

2010A hostile work environment claim requires an examination of "all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Doyle v. Dep' t ~f HIl771nll Servs., 2003 ME 61 , ~ 23, 824 A.2d 48, 56 (quotation marks omitted).

2010A hostile work environment claim requires an examination of "all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Doyle v. Dep' t ~f HIl771nll Servs., 2003 ME 61 , ~ 23, 824 A.2d 48, 56 (quotation marks omitted).

2018To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1 based on isolated incidents of harassment, such incidents must be "extreme" or "egregious," and the Supreme Court has cautioned that "simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment." Faragher v. City a/Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); Ponte v. Steelcase, Inc., 741 F.3d 310,320 (1st Cir. 2014).

2001O’Rourke v. City of Providence, Nos. 99-2346, 00-1008, 2001 WL 8598, at *13 (1st Cir. Jan. 8, 2001) (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-789 (1998); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 20-23 (1993); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-73 (1986)).

2009Bean, Inc., 303 F.3d 387, 395 (1st Cir.2002)). 4 [¶ 23] A hostile work environment claim requires an examination of “all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Doyle v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2003 ME 61, ¶ 23 , 824 A.2d 48, 56 (quotation marks omitted).

2005See Crowley, 303 F.3d at 395 ; O'Rourke, 235 F.3d at 728 .

2005Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, Inc., 675 A.2d 973, 976 (Me.1996). [¶ 10] We have not yet addressed whether a hostile work environment claim can constitute an adverse employment action pursuant to the WPA, see Doyle, 2003 ME 61 , ¶ 24 n. 14, 824 A.2d at 57 .

2003Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, Inc., 675 A.2d 973, 976 (Me.1996) (involving a hostile work environment claim based upon one incident of sexual harassment brought pursuant to MHRA). *57 [¶ 24] Viewing the evidence properly presented in accordance with Rule 56 in the light most favorable to Doyle, the primary evidence for an actionable hostile work environment claim is Kiesow’s comment that Doyle should go to the restroom because Kiesow did not want to “clean it up.” According to Doyle, this comment was offensive and caused her anguish.

2017In reviewing the :tvIHRC's interpretation of this rule, the Law Court upheld the standard that employers are liable for co-worker sexual harassment under a hostile work environment claim when "the employer knew or should have known of the charged sexual harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." 1 Watt, 2009 ME 47 , <_[[ 27.

2010Hostile Work Environment "A hostile work environment claim requires an examination of 'all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.'" Watt, 2009 ME 47 , <f[ 23, 969 A.2d 897, 903 (quoting Doyle v. Dept of Human Servs., 2003 NIE 61, <f[ 23, 824 A.2d 48,56 (citation omitted)).

2005When determining whether a hostile work environment claim exists, the court must “look to ‘all *238 the circumstances,’ including ‘the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.’ ” Id. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 , 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (internal quotations omitted)). [¶ 9] The type of harassment shown must be “severe enough to cause the workplace to become hostile or abusive.” Do

2005When determining whether a hostile work environment claim exists, the court must “look to ‘all *238 the circumstances,’ including ‘the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.’ ” Id. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 , 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (internal quotations omitted)). [¶ 9] The type of harassment shown must be “severe enough to cause the workplace to become hostile or abusive.” Do

2005See Crowley, 303 F.3d at 395 ; O'Rourke, 235 F.3d at 728 .

2001O’Rourke v. City of Providence, Nos. 99-2346, 00-1008, 2001 WL 8598, at *13 (1st Cir. Jan. 8, 2001) (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-789 (1998); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 20-23 (1993); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-73 (1986)).

2018Rother v. NYS DOCCS, 970 F. Supp. 2d 78, 93 (N.D.N.Y. 2013) ("the standard for constructive discharge is even higher than that required to prevail on a hostile work environment claim.") "In order for a resignation to constitute a constructive discharge, it must be 'void of choice or free will-[the] only option was to quit."' Sullivan, 2016 ME 107 , j 21; citing EEOC v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127, 134 (1st Cir. 2014).

2018To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1 based on isolated incidents of harassment, such incidents must be "extreme" or "egregious," and the Supreme Court has cautioned that "simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment." Faragher v. City a/Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); Ponte v. Steelcase, Inc., 741 F.3d 310,320 (1st Cir. 2014).

2018Rother v. NYS DOCCS, 970 F. Supp. 2d 78, 93 (N.D.N.Y. 2013) ("the standard for constructive discharge is even higher than that required to prevail on a hostile work environment claim.") "In order for a resignation to constitute a constructive discharge, it must be 'void of choice or free will-[the] only option was to quit."' Sullivan, 2016 ME 107 , j 21; citing EEOC v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127, 134 (1st Cir. 2014).

2017Cerros v. Steel Techs., Inc., 288 F.3d 1040, 1046 (7th Cir. 2002).

2015Indus., 989 F.2d 959, 966 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding that, under circumstances of the case "for a co-employee to refer to a woman employee as a 'bitch' or 'cunt' in the work place is 6 The isolated incidents involving the vendor and the temporary employee are insufficient to support a hostile work environment claim.

2015Berry v. City of S. Portland, 525 F. Supp. 2d 214, 232 (D.

2010Constructive Discharge The "constructive discharge standard is more onerous than the hostile work environment standard." Bodman v. Me., Dep't of HHS, 720 F. Supp. 2d 115, 123 (D.

2008See Lee-Crespo, 354 F.3d at 46-47 .

2005Id. at 116 (citations omitted).

2001O’Rourke v. City of Providence, Nos. 99-2346, 00-1008, 2001 WL 8598, at *13 (1st Cir. Jan. 8, 2001) (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-789 (1998); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 20-23 (1993); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-73 (1986)).