hostile work environment claim in Massachusetts

2024See infra. 24 investigation); College-Town, 400 Mass. at 167-168 (same).

2002A court must consider “whether, in the totality of the circumstances, the alleged conduct is sufficiently severe and pervasive to ‘interfere with a hypothetical reasonable person’s work performance.’ ” Id., quoting Lewis v. Gillette, 1993 WL 291771 (D.Mass. 1993), affirmed by Lewis v. Gillette, 22 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 1993); see Gnerre v. MCAD, 402 Mass. at 507-08 (in evaluating a hostile work environment claim, the court will examine whether, from the point of view of a reasonable person in plaintiffs position, the alleged misconduct was sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of her empl

2021To prove a hostile work environment claim, Sims "needed to establish that the conduct alleged was sufficiently severe and pervasive to interfere with a reasonable person's work performance." Muzzy v. Cahillane Motors, Inc., 434 Mass. 409, 411 (2011).

2008The concept of a hostile work environment claim was developed in the context of sexual harassment case law, and is dependent upon a finding that the abusive conduct was “sufficiently severe and pervasive to interfere with a reasonable person’s work performance.” Muzzy v. Cahillane Motors, Inc., 434 Mass. 409, 411 (2001).

2023(Sec Pl.'s Opp. at 23 (emphasis added).) A hostile work environment claim concerns discriminatory conduct that "unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

2004An employee may make out a hostile work environment claim if he alleges “offensive, race-based conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment and is subjectively perceived by the victim as abusive.” Landrau-Romero v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 212 F.3d 607, 613 (1st Cir. 2000), citing Lattimore v. Polaroid Corp., 99 F.3d 456, 463 (1st Cir. 1996); see also Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (“]c]onduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environm

2004An employee may make out a hostile work environment claim if he alleges “offensive, race-based conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment and is subjectively perceived by the victim as abusive.” Landrau-Romero v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 212 F.3d 607, 613 (1st Cir. 2000), citing Lattimore v. Polaroid Corp., 99 F.3d 456, 463 (1st Cir. 1996); see also Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (“]c]onduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environm

2003An employee may make out a hostile work environment claim if he alleges “offensive, race-based conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment and is subjectively perceived by the victim as abusive.” Landrau-Romero v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 212 F.3d 607, 613 (1st Cir. 2000), citing Lattimore v. Polaroid Corp., 99 F.3d 456, 463 (1st Cir. 1996).

2004An employee may make out a hostile work environment claim if he alleges “offensive, race-based conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment and is subjectively perceived by the victim as abusive.” Landrau-Romero v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 212 F.3d 607, 613 (1st Cir. 2000), citing Lattimore v. Polaroid Corp., 99 F.3d 456, 463 (1st Cir. 1996); see also Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (“]c]onduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environm

2003An employee may make out a hostile work environment claim if he alleges “offensive, race-based conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment and is subjectively perceived by the victim as abusive.” Landrau-Romero v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 212 F.3d 607, 613 (1st Cir. 2000), citing Lattimore v. Polaroid Corp., 99 F.3d 456, 463 (1st Cir. 1996).

2021See Windross, 71 Mass. App. Ct. at 868-869 .

2021LEXIS 42962 , at *26-27 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (although incidents that occurred outside of work may provide context for incidents occurring at work, “they cannot, in themselves, give rise to [a hostile work environment claim]; what matters in the end is the plaintiff’s work environment”); Kohutka v. Hempstead, 994 F. Supp. 2d 305 , -24- 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“[A]s a general proposition, employers are not responsible . . . for hostile sexual acts resulting from nonwork-related, off-duty interactions between co-employees.”) (citation omitted).

2008See Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. at 532; Salvi v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 603 (2006).

2003See also Cathey v. Fallon Clinic, Inc., 13 Mass. L.

2003My conclusion is buttressed by O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713, 729-30 (1st Cir. 2001), where the Court of Appeals stated: Where a plaintiff endures harassing conduct, although not explicitly sexual in nature, which undermines her ability to succeed at her job, those acts should be considered along with overtly sexual conduct in assessing a hostile work environment claim . . .

2002A court must consider “whether, in the totality of the circumstances, the alleged conduct is sufficiently severe and pervasive to ‘interfere with a hypothetical reasonable person’s work performance.’ ” Id., quoting Lewis v. Gillette, 1993 WL 291771 (D.Mass. 1993), affirmed by Lewis v. Gillette, 22 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 1993); see Gnerre v. MCAD, 402 Mass. at 507-08 (in evaluating a hostile work environment claim, the court will examine whether, from the point of view of a reasonable person in plaintiffs position, the alleged misconduct was sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of her empl

1993See Gnerre v. MCAD, 402 Mass. 502, 507-08 (1988); College-Town, Division of Interco, Inc. v. MCAD, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1988) (College-Town).