Gamble v. Fieldston Lodge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

Background

Tanya Gamble alleged that she was employed by Fieldston Lodge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center from 2013 until August 13, 2019. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for sexual-orientation discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The claims arose from her employment with Fieldston. Fieldston moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings on Count III, the hostile-work-environment claim. The opinion states that Fieldston did not seek judgment on Count I, the discrimination claim, or Count II, the retaliation claim.

Gamble alleged that a video of her engagement to her same-sex partner circulated at her workplace in May 2019. She alleged that coworkers made comments about her sexual orientation, including asking whether she would attend a New York City LGBTQ Pride parade and telling her, “You don’t look gay.” She also alleged that coworkers made gestures and comments about another employee believed to be homosexual, and that administrator Knolls used an anti-gay slur when referring to gay men. After Gamble complained to three people at Fieldston, she alleged that Knolls largely stopped speaking to her, Fieldston withdrew an offer for her to become Staffing Coordinator, and Fieldston terminated her employment.

Legal standard and analysis

A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings uses the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court accepts nonconclusory factual allegations as true and asks whether the complaint contains enough factual matter to make the claim plausible. For a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, the complaint must allege conduct that was objectively severe or pervasive, that Gamble subjectively viewed as hostile or abusive, and that occurred because of her sexual orientation.

The court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege an objectively severe or pervasive hostile work environment. It described the comments directed at Gamble as insensitive and offensive but found that the few specific examples over the relevant four-month period did not change the conditions of her employment. The comments about another employee were not directed at Gamble and were few in number. The court also found that the responses from the people Gamble contacted about her complaints were insufficient, by themselves or together with the other allegations, to establish a hostile work environment.

The court considered the allegations concerning Knolls but found them insufficient without more detail. The allegation that Knolls almost completely stopped speaking to Gamble did not explain the regularity or volume of their prior contact. The allegation that Knolls used an anti-gay slur did not say that Gamble was present, who heard it, or when and how Gamble learned about it. The court also noted that the complaint did not allege that the comments were threatening or humiliating, rather than merely offensive, or that they interfered with Gamble’s work performance. Finally, the court found that Gamble’s three complaints on one day and her general allegation of emotional distress did not plausibly show that she subjectively experienced her work environment as hostile or abusive.

Disposition

The court held that Gamble’s complaint did not plausibly allege a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim and dismissed that claim. Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Fieldston’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Count III. The order did not rule on Counts I or II. The parties were directed to file a joint letter about completing discovery and whether either side intended to seek summary judgment.