Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—D. Md.: Male employees advance sexual harassment claims against supervisor, (Apr 27, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

The supervisor’s conduct, including describing sexual dreams involving employees, making suggestive comments, and drawing images of male genitalia, was sufficiently humiliating and frequent so as to meet the “severe or pervasive” standard when viewed in totality.

A federal district court in Maryland held that two municipal employees plausibly alleged a hostile work environment under Title VII based on repeated sexually explicit conduct by a supervisor but it significantly limited their retaliation claims. The supervisor’s conduct, while not physically threatening, was sufficiently humiliating and frequent so as to meet the “severe or pervasive” standard when viewed in totality. However, only one employee’s retaliation claim, based on a negative performance evaluation, survived dismissal, while the remainder were dismissed for lack of sufficient factual support or causation (Weide v. City of Cumberland, No. SAG-25-03566 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2026)).

The male employees, who worked for a municipal flood control department, alleged their male supervisor engaged in repeated sexually explicit conduct, including describing sexual dreams involving them, making suggestive comments, and drawing images of male genitalia in the workplace. One employee reported the conduct, triggering an internal investigation after which the employer placed the supervisor on administrative leave, confirmed misconduct, and found a violation of workplace policy. However, the employer reinstated the supervisor shortly thereafter without significant corrective measures.

Retaliatory conduct. Following the supervisor’s return, the employees alleged a pattern of retaliatory conduct, including heightened monitoring, assignment of undesirable or unsafe tasks, differential treatment compared to other departments, and the spread of workplace rumors. One employee received his first negative performance evaluation after many years of satisfactory service, while the other had his seasonal contract terminated early. Additionally, one employee alleged interference with medical leave and escalating workplace hostility, ultimately leading to his resignation.

The employees brought claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and the employer moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The federal district court declined to convert the motion to summary judgment, finding the employees had not had a meaningful chance to conduct discovery.

Hostile work environment claims. To survive dismissal, the employees needed to plausibly allege unwelcome conduct based on sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive and imputable to the employer, and the court found those elements were met at the pleading stage. The supervisor’s repeated sexual comments, explicit drawings, and public humiliation of the employees, combined with the power imbalance inherent in a supervisory role, supported a plausible inference of sex-based harassment. The conduct, while not physically threatening, was sufficiently humiliating and repeated to meet the “severe or pervasive” standard when viewed in totality. The court rejected the employer’s defense that it took corrective actions, noting that while it initiated an investigation, the complaint alleged failures to follow internal policies, implement interim protections, or adequately address the misconduct upon the supervisor’s return.

Retaliation claims. The employees asserted various instances they claimed rose to the level of retaliation, including unsafe conditions, vague threats, and differential treatment. The court applied the standard requiring protected activity, adverse action, and causation; it then held that participating in the harassment investigation constituted protected activity. However, most alleged retaliatory acts failed either because they were not materially adverse or they lacked a plausible causal connection, the court held.

For example, the employees’ allegations regarding vague threats and isolated coworker misconduct either lacked specificity, were too temporally remote, or failed to connect to retaliatory intent. The key exception was the negative performance evaluation, and the court emphasized that, under modern Title VII standards, an adverse action need not affect compensation or job status; it is enough if it could deter a reasonable employee from reporting discrimination. The timing of the evaluation, occurring at a natural evaluation point, and the absence of justification for the negative review supported a plausible inference of retaliation, the court held.

Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.

The case is No. SAG-25-03566.

Judge: Gallagher, S.

Attorneys: Donald Quinn, Jr. (Quinn Patton) for Derek Weide and Robert M. Iliff. George B. Keahey (Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly) for City of Cumberland, Maryland.

Companies: City of Cumberland, Maryland

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Retaliation PublicEmployees MarylandNews