
Yes, you can. The legal standard for hostile work environment claims has evolved, making it easier for employees to prove their claims. In McNeal v. City of Blue Ash, Ohio, 117 F.4th 887 (6th Cir. 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit clarified that employees no longer need to show “significant harm” to their job conditions. Instead, only “some harm” is required. This shift stems from the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), which lowered the bar for proving adverse actions under workplace discrimination laws.
This change was pivotal for Gary McNeal, a 61-year-old police officer who alleged that his supervisors in the Blue Ash Police Department subjected him to years of excessive scrutiny and disproportionate discipline compared to younger officers. McNeal sued the department for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), arguing that his age made him a target for unfair treatment. His claims included frequent reprimands for minor infractions and being assigned to a demeaning traffic study designed to humiliate him. These cumulative actions, the Sixth Circuit held, met the new threshold for a hostile work environment.
Let us explore how this updated standard applies to all protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including race/color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, and disability.
What Counts as a Hostile Work Environment Under Employment Law?
The Title VII, the ADEA, and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibit employers from creating work environments “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” severe enough to alter the conditions of employment. Traditionally, courts required employees to demonstrate “significant harm,” such as demotion, firing, or a tangible job impact, to prove a hostile work environment. This heightened standard excluded many employees who endured pervasive harassment without major disruptions to their job.
The Supreme Court in Muldrow rejected this approach. The Court held that hostile work environment claims require only “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment” Muldrow, 601 U.S. at 355, 144 S.Ct. 967. Because hostile-work-environment claims arise out of the same statutory language as disparate-treatment claims, Muldrow’s holding that Title VII does not require plaintiffs to show “significant” harm applies to both types of claims. Id.; Crawford v. Medina Gen. Hosp., 96 F.3d 830, 834 (6th Cir. 1996) (“The theoretical rationale for the doctrine is that sufficiently abusive harassment adversely affects a ‘term, condition, or privilege’ of employment within the meaning of Title VII.”).
In McNeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit adopted Muldrow’s standard. The Court held that an abusive work environment can be proven when cumulative harassment leaves an employee “worse off respecting employment terms or conditions” Muldrow, 601 U.S. at 355, 144 S.Ct. 967. For Gary McNeal, an older officer, this included years of disproportionate discipline, demeaning assignments, and heightened scrutiny compared to younger officers.
Best Hostile Work Environment Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Can Public Harassment Regarding Work Performance Create A Hostile Work Environment?
- What Is Considered A Racially Hostile Work Environment?
- Can Offensive Music Create A Hostile Work Environment In Violation Of Title VII?
Can Minor Incidents of Harassment Add Up to a Hostile Work Environment?
Yes, they can. Hostile work environment claims depend on the cumulative effect of individual acts rather than the severity of each incident. In McNeal, the Sixth Circuit focused on how repeated minor infractions, when weaponized against an employee, created an abusive atmosphere.
McNeal faced discipline for infractions such as failing to use a microphone during traffic stops or submitting training certificates late—violations other officers committed without consequence. Supervisors scrutinized him excessively, reviewing a year’s worth of in-car camera footage, an unprecedented level of monitoring. Witness testimony revealed that McNeal’s supervisors seemed to enjoy disciplining him, with one officer describing their behavior as “smiling” and “giggling.”
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that these actions, considered cumulatively, created a hostile work environment under Muldrow’s “some harm” standard. This approach underscores the importance of documenting even minor incidents, as they can collectively support a strong legal claim.
Best Wrongful Termination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- Can I Lose A Wrongful Termination Claim And Win A Hostile Work Environment Claim? Yes.
- Are You In A Legally Hostile Work Environment?
- Speculation Cannot Support Hostile Work Environment Claim
How Can Employees Protect Their Rights in Hostile Work Environment Cases?
If you believe your employer has created a hostile work environment, begin by documenting every incident, including dates, actions, and witnesses. Retain copies of performance reviews, disciplinary records, and communications that may support your claim. A strong record of evidence is crucial for proving cumulative harm.
Consulting with an experienced employment lawyer is the next step. At Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, we specialize in protecting employees’ rights. As one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated solely to employee advocacy, we have the resources and expertise to handle complex cases. With a free initial consultation and a no-fee guarantee, there is no risk in contacting us. Our attorneys have a proven history of great results, vast trial experience, and genuine care for employees like you. Call us today to schedule your consultation. Do not wait to protect your rights.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employment discrimination blog provides general information about hostile work environments based on race discrimination, gender discrimination, religious discrimination, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. Because this employment law summary is general information, you should not consider it to be legal advice. You should consult with a qualified employment lawyer for specific advice tailored to your workplace discrimination situation. No promises or guarantees are made. This blog is a legal advertisement. Terms such as employee, employer, discrimination, employment law, attorney, and lawyer are used to help readers find accurate information about their rights.