BlogLine

Eastern District of Pennsylvania clarifies limits of workplace harassment and retaliation claims

9/11/25

By: Nick Franos

In Nyamu v. Merck & Co., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to the employer, dismissing claims of retaliation and hostile work environment sexual harassment. The decision illustrates both the high standard plaintiffs must meet in harassment cases and the continued viability of summary judgment for employers under the right circumstances.

Background

Peter Nyamu, a biotechnician at Merck, alleged misconduct after a staff meeting where his supervisor, upon realizing he had forgotten to hand Nyamu a schedule, leaned in and whispered: “I don’t know how I missed giving you a schedule because I use your voice to know where you are standing. You have a voice that is very specific to me.” Two months later, Nyamu claimed he experienced retaliation in the form of reduced overtime and reassignment after filing a grievance.

The Court’s Analysis: Retaliation Claim

To prevail on retaliation, a plaintiff must show they engaged in protected activity, i.e., conduct that reflects an objectively reasonable belief of unlawful discrimination. The court concluded no reasonable person could interpret the supervisor’s remark as unlawful under Title VII. Because the incident amounted to, at most, an isolated comment without derogatory or sexual content, Nyamu’s grievance was not protected activity. Summary judgment was therefore granted on retaliation.

Hostile Work Environment Claim

A hostile work environment requires intentional discrimination based on sex that is severe or pervasive. Evaluating the totality of the circumstances (frequency, severity, whether physically threatening or humiliating, and impact on work) the court found the single whisper neither severe nor pervasive. There was no evidence of sexual content or intent, and thus no basis to infer discrimination “because of sex.” Summary judgment was also granted on this claim.

Significance for Employers

Although summary judgment remains rare in employment discrimination cases in the Third Circuit, Nyamu underscores two important points:

1. Protected Activity Has Limits. Not every complaint about workplace conduct qualifies. To be protected, the underlying belief of illegality must be objectively reasonable.
2. “Severe or Pervasive” Still Matters. Courts will not stretch Title VII to cover isolated, non-sexual remarks lacking genuine discriminatory content.

Employers should not expect a surge of favorable summary judgments, but this case demonstrates that with a well-documented defense and clear legal standards, early dismissal is possible. It also reinforces that courts remain willing to apply the “severe or pervasive” standard rigorously, protecting employers from claims grounded in minor or isolated incidents.

For more information, please contact our FMG Labor & Employment Law team.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.