Paul H. Zarza v. Tallahassee Housing Authority
686 F. App'x 747
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Paul Zarza, a white maintenance supervisor at Tallahassee Housing Authority (THA), alleges race-based hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation after a 2011–2012 reorganization and supervisory changes.
- Supervisor Wilford Evans (African‑American) replaced the prior property manager and repeatedly reassigned Plaintiff’s truck, issued written warnings to Plaintiff (but not others), and denied Plaintiff office/cubicle space, forcing him to work in the breakroom.
- Plaintiff complained in June 2012 to Deputy Director Laura Detsch (white) that Evans’s treatment was racially motivated; Detsch did not document passing the complaint to Executive Director Brenda Williams. Mediation was attempted and unsuccessful.
- Plaintiff resigned in September 2012, asserting the workplace had become too hostile, and sued under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act for hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the alleged conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive and retaliation unsupported by required causation/material‑adversity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (race) | Zarza: repeated denials of office/vehicle, write‑ups, and supervisor hostility created an abusive environment because he is white | THA: incidents were isolated, non‑racially‑charged in Plaintiff’s presence, and did not rise to severe or pervasive harassment | Court: Granted summary judgment for THA; harassment not objectively severe or pervasive |
| Constructive discharge | Zarza: conditions were so intolerable he was forced to resign | THA: conduct did not meet higher threshold for constructive discharge beyond hostile work environment | Court: Denied claim (fails because hostile‑environment threshold not met) |
| Retaliation | Zarza: protected complaint to Detsch led to adverse actions (continued write‑ups, mediation, etc.) | THA: no evidence decision‑maker (Williams) knew of the race complaint and no materially adverse action is identified | Court: Denied claim — no causation (actual knowledge by decision‑maker) and no materially adverse action shown |
| Evidence/summary judgment standard | Zarza: factual disputes preclude summary judgment | THA: record lacks evidence to create genuine issue on severe/pervasive harassment or retaliation elements | Court: Reviewed de novo; concluded no genuine dispute on material elements and affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (repeated ethnic slurs multiple times per day supported hostile‑work‑environment finding)
- Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.) (series of escalating racially hostile acts over a year can create a triable hostile‑environment issue)
- McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370 (11th Cir.) (sporadic or isolated racial remarks insufficient for hostile‑work‑environment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S.) (hostile‑work‑environment standard requires both subjective and objective showing of severity or pervasiveness)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S.) (offhand comments and isolated incidents generally insufficient)
- Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.) (constructive discharge requires greater severity than hostile‑work‑environment)
- Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir.) (causation in retaliation claims construed broadly; temporal proximity can help)
- Brungart v. BellSouth Telecomms., 231 F.3d 791 (11th Cir.) (retaliation requires decision‑maker’s actual knowledge of protected activity)