Dominguez v. Lake Como Club, 520 F. App'x 937

Dominguez, proceeding pro se, appeals district court’s grant of summary judgment for Lake Como Co-op, Inc. on Title VII claims.
Dominguez worked on the resort’s maintenance staff from 2005 until termination in 2008.
Alleged discrimination began with a 2007 comment by the manager’s wife about Cubans, after which Dominguez complained.
He alleges ongoing retaliatory acts, heavier work assignments, restricted breaks, and racial slurs.
In 2008, Dominguez tossed a cigarette butt at a coworker and, in November 2008, faced two alleged improper incidents involving a patron, culminating in his termination.
District court denied appointment of counsel; Dominguez challenged the merits of discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation theories on appeal and the court affirmed summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dominguez proved Title VII discrimination by circumstantial evidence.	Dominguez argues ongoing Cuban/national-origin discrimination.	Resort argues conduct was not severe or pervasive enough and no comparators shown.	No reversible error; no material change in terms of employment proven; no pretext established.
Whether the harassment constituted a hostile work environment.	Harassment from comments and slurs created an abusive environment.	Harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive.	Harassment not sufficiently severe or pervasive; no hostile environment.
Whether there was actionable retaliation for reporting the 2007 comment.	Retaliation followed the protected complaint.	Termination remote in time and supported by legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.	No causal connection shown; reasons for termination are legitimate.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying counsel.	Case is complex; appointment of counsel warranted.	No exceptional circumstances; record shows capable self-representation.	No abuse of discretion; request denied.

Owen v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 629 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment de novo; evidence viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
Bass v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 256 F.3d 1095 (11th Cir. 2001) (framework for circumstantial Title VII discrimination claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (11th Cir. 1997) (pretext and burden-shifting in Title VII cases)
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (hostile environment standard; severity/pervasiveness)
Spivey v. Beverly Enters., 196 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 1999) (prima facie case and comparative evidence)
Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (adverse action requirement under Title VII)
Alvarez v. Royal Atlantic Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (causation in retaliation claims; protected conduct)
Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (retaliation framework; McDonnell Douglas applied to retaliation)
Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990) (exceptional circumstances for counsel appointment factors)
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982) (factors for appointment of counsel in pro se cases)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (binding precedent of early Fifth Circuit decided before Oct. 1, 1981)