Alexis Soto Fernandez v. Trees, Inc., 961 F.3d 1148

Fernandez, a Cuban crew foreperson at Trees, Inc. (2015–2016), was supervised by Adam Soto.
After a physical altercation between Soto and another Cuban employee, Soto began making near-daily derogatory remarks about Cubans (e.g., ‘shitty Cubans,’ ‘fucking Cubans,’ ‘new policy…no more Cuban people’).
Fernandez and coworkers complained to Soto and at a team meeting; Soto persisted and coworkers corroborated multiple specific incidents.
About two months later, Fernandez attempted suicide at a job site; he was then terminated (parties dispute quit vs. firing; Trees treated as termination for appeal).
Fernandez sued under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act alleging hostile work environment and national-origin discrimination (termination).
The district court granted summary judgment for Trees on both claims; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the termination claim but reversed and remanded the hostile-work-environment claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Soto’s conduct created a hostile work environment based on national origin	Soto’s near-daily vulgar, group-directed slurs and continuing conduct after complaints made the environment objectively and subjectively hostile	The comments were isolated, offhand utterances insufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions	Reversed: a reasonable jury could find the harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive; remanded for further proceedings
Whether Soto’s statement ‘new policy…no more Cuban people’ is direct evidence that Fernandez was terminated for national origin	The statement shows discriminatory intent and is direct evidence that Cubans were to be excluded, implying termination motive	The remark, at most, shows a hiring preference and requires inference to apply to termination, so it is circumstantial	Affirmed: statement is not direct evidence of termination discrimination; summary judgment on this claim was proper

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile-work-environment legal standard)
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) (subjective and objective hostility inquiry)
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (factors for hostile work environment and employer liability)
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (11th Cir. 2010) (class-targeted, repeated harassment can be pervasive; complaints strengthen inference)
Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (direct evidence standard: only the most blatant remarks constitute direct evidence)
Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (context-specific remarks may not be direct evidence across different employment actions)
Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broad. Serv., Inc., 234 F.3d 501 (11th Cir. 2000) (frequency examples relevant to pervasiveness analysis)
Miles v. M.N.C. Corp., 750 F.2d 867 (11th Cir. 1985) (burden-shifting framework for direct evidence claims)