Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—M.D. Fla.: Female employee, repeatedly hugged after breast surgery, stated hostile environment, battery claims, (Oct 8, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

At this stage, the court said it was required to accept that her former manager’s alleged conduct was within his scope of employment.

A hostile work environment claim brought by a female employee repeatedly hugged by her former manager after she had breast augmentation surgery survived a motion to dismiss. The employee alleged that the employer violated Title VII and its state law counterpart by “permitting a sexually hostile environment to exist which was both severe and pervasive.” A federal district court in Florida held that her claims must proceed, noting that the employee was not required to allege an adverse employment action or a comparator. Her battery claim also survived (Sisca v. City Furniture, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-139-KCD-DNF (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2025)).

Hugged repeatedly. An employee sued her former manager and her former employer, claiming that after she had breast augmentation surgery, the manager hugged her while commenting “very nice.” This allegedly occurred at work, during hours of operation, and as part of a team meeting. According to the complaint, the manager then hugged the employee at every meeting following the surgery. Other employees, meanwhile, were greeted with a fist bump. The employee alleged that these hugs made her feel “very uneasy and uncomfortable.”

She was later terminated. She brought suit for hostile work environment sex discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act and battery under Florida law. The manager and employer moved to dismiss.

Sex discrimination. The employer and manager first argued that the employee’s sex discrimination claims failed because she did not identify any “similarly situated individuals that were treated more favorably.” They also noted that she did not tie the alleged discrimination to any adverse employment action.

However, the court pointed out that the employee was not required to allege an adverse employment action or a comparator under the claims brought. The discrimination claims alleged that the employer violated Title VII and its state law counterpart by “permitting a sexually hostile environment to exist which was both severe and pervasive.” A hostile work environment claim is established upon proof that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”

The employer and manager also accused the employee of improperly “comingling” claims of two forms of discrimination: disparate treatment and hostile work environment. To be sure, said the court, claims for hostile work environment and for discrimination based on disparate treatment are distinct claims that must be pleaded separately. But here the employee was suing for “a sexually hostile environment” and nothing more.

With no other arguments contesting the adequacy of the employee’s hostile work environment claims, the court held that those claims must proceed.

Battery. Turning to the battery claim, the employer did not dispute that the employee was battered. Rather, it argued that the complaint failed to demonstrate any basis for employer liability. An employer is directly liable “for the intentional torts of its employees where the employer either directed the wrongful acts or ratified the conduct afterward.”

Nothing in the complaint suggested (let alone alleged) that the employer directed its manager to hug the employee. Nor were there facts to show ratification. To proceed on a ratification theory, the employer must “have full knowledge, at the time of the ratification, of all material facts and circumstances relating to the unauthorized act or transaction.”

There must also be an intention to ratify the employee’s conduct “manifested in some way.” Although the employee claimed that the employer ratified the tortious conduct, there were no ultimate facts pled to meet the necessary elements. The court agreed that the employee failed to allege direct liability against the employer.

However, an employer can also be held vicariously liable for employee conduct. Employers are vicariously liable for intentional torts if they are committed while the employee is “acting within the scope of his employment.” The conduct of an employee is within the scope of his employment only if: (1) the conduct is of the kind he was employed to perform, (2) the conduct occurs substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed, and (3) the conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master. The purpose of the employee’s act, rather than the method of performance, is said to be the important consideration. The issue turns on the motive of the employee and whether the purpose of the conduct was at all in furtherance of the employer’s interest.

Here, the alleged battery coincided with a team meeting where the manager physically greeted all employees. Considered in context, the hugs could be deemed an overzealous and distasteful attempt to build team rapport. The court was required to take the facts in the light most favorable to the employee. Against that backdrop, it was plausible that the manager was motivated by the employer’s interest in managing employees and workplace morale.

While the ultimate facts may prove otherwise, at this stage the court said it was required to accept that the manager’s alleged conduct was within his scope of employment because it occurred during work, and he could have been motivated by the interests of the employer. Consequently, the employee’s battery claim also survived.

The motions to dismiss were accordingly, denied.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-139-KCD-DNF.

Judge: Dudek, K.

Attorneys: G. Ware Cornell, Jr. (Cornell & Associates) for Claudine Sisca. Charles S. Caulkins (Fisher & Phillips) for City Furniture, Inc. and David Roman.

Companies: City Furniture, Inc.

Cases: SexualHarassment Discrimination TortClaims FloridaNews