WRONGFUL TERMINATION-HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Nitkin v. Main Line Health, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11561 (3d Cir. May 11, 2023) (Jordan, C.J.). Appellant April Nitkin filed a lawsuit against Main Line Health, Inc. (“MLH”), alleging claims of a hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of federal and state laws. MLH successfully moved for summary judgment on the hostile work environment and wrongful termination claims. Nitkin succeeded on her surviving retaliation claim, but she has now appealed the District Court’s order entering summary judgment against her on the hostile work environment claim. Because the District Court correctly determined that Nitkin did not demonstrate that the harassment she experienced was severe or pervasive, we will affirm. We also consider the nature and severity of the misconduct, including whether it involved “physically threatening or humiliating [acts], or … mere offensive utterance[s].” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Here, although the Lead Doctor’s remarks were obnoxious, unprofessional, and inappropriate, he never threatened Nitkin, touched her, or propositioned her for a date or sex. We do not suggest that touching, threats, propositions of sex, or requests for dates, are necessary to demonstrate a hostile work environment; other verbal comments can suffice where they are sufficiently severe or pervasive. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23 (holding that “no single factor is required” to show a hostile work environment, including “whether [the acts are] physically threatening”); Mandel, 706 F.3d at 168 (noting that courts should consider whether conduct is “physically threatening or humiliating”). Moreover, courts may look to conduct directed at individuals other than the plaintiff in determining whether a hostile work environment exists. We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that – even considered together – the identified incidents do not rise to a level that could fairly be called severe or pervasive and thus did not “alter the conditions of [Nitkin’s] employment and create an abusive working environment,” Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67. No rational jury, following the law, could conclude otherwise.