Listen to this articleAn employee could not base a hostile work environment claim on alleged “mansplaining” by a male colleague, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided.
Plaintiff Susan O’Horo was employed as an interventional radiologist and the department’s director of quality and safety at a defendant hospital. The plaintiff brought suit under Title VII alleging that she was unable to effectively carry out her duties and correct safety concerns because her workplace was permeated by discriminatory and retaliatory animus. One of the plaintiff’s allegations was that Dr. Mikhail Higgins “mansplained” and spoke condescendingly to her.
“Even if we assume as true Dr. O’Horo’s version of the foregoing allegations, when viewed both individually and collectively, they do not amount to the sort of severe and pervasive harassment based on gender necessary to establish a hostile work environment claim,” Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí wrote for the panel.
“As an initial matter, Dr. O’Horo’s claim rests, in large part, on incidents with no apparent relation to her gender, and she makes no effort — beyond pointing to her subjective beliefs — to demonstrate such gender-based discriminatory animus,” Gelpí stated.
“Take first Dr. O’Horo’s contention that she felt Dr. [Mikhail] Higgins ‘mansplained’ to her on one occasion and, throughout 2018 and 2019, treated her worse than her male colleagues. But harassment coupled with a plaintiff’s subjective belief of discrimination ‘doesn’t tell us much,’ because ‘there is a plethora of reasons’ why Dr. Higgins could have treated Dr. O’Horo poorly ‘that have no nexus to her gender,’” Gelpí said.
In fact, Gelpi said, the evidence showed that Higgins had interpersonal conflicts with a number of colleagues, including several non-female ones.
“In other words, the record evidence suggests that Dr. Higgins’s interpersonal conflicts were not unique to Dr. O’Horo, specifically, or women, generally; rather, Dr. Higgins treated many of his colleagues, including non-female ones, the same: poorly. And ‘generally disagreeable behavior’ without discriminatory animus is beyond Title VII’s purview,” he added.
The 49-page decision is O’Horo v. Boston Medical Center Corporation, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 01-043-25.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.