Tonia Royal v. CCC&R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23477

Royal was hired as a leasing manager on August 3, 2009 and fired four days later on August 6 by supervisor Asia Brazil.
Two maintenance men repeatedly entered Royal’s small office (≈12 times each over four days), hovered over her, and made sniffing gestures; one allegedly sat with legs open and stared; one said at a staff meeting he “needed to get a release.”
Royal complained to Assistant Manager Robin Granger and at a staff meeting attended by Brazil; Granger reportedly told her to “let it slide.”
After Royal complained at the meeting and in a follow-up meeting with Brazil and Granger, Brazil fired Royal and gave no specific reason.
Royal sued under Title VII alleging sexual harassment (hostile work environment) and retaliation; she appealed only the retaliation claim after the district court granted summary judgment for CCC&R dismissing all claims.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether genuine disputes of material fact existed as to (1) whether the conduct constituted unlawful sex-based harassment and (2) whether Royal’s complaint causally led to her termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the maintenance men’s sniffing/hovering and related conduct constituted sex-based harassment that altered employment terms (hostile work environment)	Royal: repeated, sexually suggestive sniffing/hovering in a small office, sexualized comments, and visible arousal created a hostile environment based on sex	CCC&R: conduct was not objectively unreasonable or sexual harassment; emphasized lack of physical contact and described termination reasons as workplace misconduct (e.g., swatting flies, slamming a door)	Reversed summary judgment: genuine dispute of material fact exists whether the conduct was severe or pervasive (or sufficiently severe) to violate Title VII; reasonable jury could find harassment based on sex
Whether Royal’s complaints were protected activity and whether Brazil’s knowledge of complaints causally linked to Royal’s termination (prima facie retaliation)	Royal: she opposed unlawful sex-based conduct in meetings attended by Brazil; temporally proximate firing supports causation	CCC&R: cited legitimate reasons for termination (workplace misconduct); Brazil denies knowledge or memory of complaints	Reversed summary judgment: genuine dispute exists whether Brazil knew of Royal’s opposition and whether termination was causally related; prima facie case of retaliation survives summary judgment

Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (establishes hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive conduct altering employment conditions)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (clarifies employer liability and that isolated incidents can be actionable if egregious)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (sets factors: frequency, severity, physically threatening or humiliating, interference with work)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination/retaliation claims)
Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2005) (applies McDonnell Douglas to retaliation claims)
Harvill v. Westward Commc’ns, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2005) (emphasizes "severe or pervasive" standard and critiques cases applying a conjunctive standard)
Shepherd v. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, 168 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 1999) (example of prior decision finding conduct insufficient for hostile work environment)
Hockman v. Westward Commc’ns, LLC, 407 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004) (another case finding no actionable hostile environment under facts then considered)
Ackel v. Nat’l Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (focus on final decisionmaker in causation analysis)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact for a jury)