Ford v. Sherwin-Williams

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

from projects, derogatory questions and comments about plaintiff’s country of origin and hygiene, and disparaging comments about Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday weren’t severe or pervasive); Morris v. City of Colorado Springs, 666 F.3d 654, 665–69 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming summary judgment because doctor flicking plaintiff on the head, throwing bloody heart tissue, and yelling at plaintiff weren’t severe or pervasive). Even the most severe of plaintiff’s accusations—that Ross made unwanted physical advances on him—aren’t sufficient. See Chytka v. Wright Tree Serv., Inc., 925 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1169 (D. Colo. 2013) (compiling cases and observing that other courts have found that limited instances of sexual advances are insufficient to create a hostile work environment). Plaintiff simply hasn’t alleged the sort of “outrageous conduct that may render a work environment hostile[.]” Iweha, 121 F.4th at 1223. The court thus dismisses this claim without prejudice. See Gee, 627 F.3d at 1186.7 Recall also that plaintiff’s claims based on events occurring before December 2023 aren’t timely. Plaintiff alleges that at least some harassment—including the incident where Ross assaulted him— occurred in August 2023. Doc. 1 at 2 (Compl. ¶ 15). As the