Vargas v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 8:16-cv-01949

Background

Jesus Vargas, a Hispanic store manager for Michaels with prior service in Puerto Rico and New York, transferred to a Tampa store in 2013 and was the only Hispanic store manager in the district.
From mid-2014 to December 2014 the store failed audits and multiple subordinates lodged complaints about Vargas’s management style and specific incidents (including a disputed “dentures” incident and alleged improper removal of merchandise).
District manager Jamie Zenn issued a written warning after a failed audit, later issued a coaching regarding employee interactions, and on December 23, 2014 gave Vargas a final warning and placed him on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
Faircloth submitted a complaint alleging Vargas sought the identities of employees who used the HR hotline and said he would take “drastic measures to save his job”; HR (Zone HR Director Gingrich) approved termination.
Zenn terminated Vargas on January 21, 2015, citing creation of a hostile work environment/retaliation; Vargas thereafter sued for race and national-origin discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII, § 1981, and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
On summary judgment, the court granted judgment for Michaels on hostile-work-environment claims and single-motive disparate-treatment claims, but denied summary judgment as to mixed-motive discrimination claims (because defendant did not address that framework).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vargas has a hostile work environment claim based on race/national origin	Vargas points to repeated complaints, disparate discipline, PIP placement, and being the lone Hispanic manager to show a workplace permeated by discrimination	Michaels contends incidents were nondiscriminatory managerial actions, not race-based harassment, and lacked severity/pervasiveness	Court: No hostile work environment — plaintiff failed to show harassment was based on race/national origin or objectively severe/pervasive
Whether PIP alone was an adverse employment action	Vargas contends PIP was unwarranted and had significant job consequences (e.g., bonus ineligibility)	Michaels argues PIP did not materially change terms/conditions and no tangible adverse effect occurred before termination	Court: PIP was not an adverse employment action (no actual material change shown)
Whether termination was disparate treatment (single-motive pretext)	Vargas argues termination was motivated by race/national origin; cites differential treatment and other Hispanic managers’ terminations	Michaels asserts legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: Vargas was terminated for creating a hostile work environment/retaliation by seeking complainants’ identities; proffered reason is lawful and supported by complaint to HR	Court: Summary judgment granted for Michaels on single-motive claim — Vargas failed to show defendant’s proffered reason was pretextual
Whether mixed-motive discrimination claim survives summary judgment	Vargas pleaded mixed-motive theory (illegal bias was a motivating factor) and opposed summary judgment on that basis	Michaels did not brief or move against mixed-motive framework on summary judgment	Court: Mixed-motive claims survive because defendant failed to address that theory; Counts survive to the extent pleaded as mixed-motive claims

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (establishes standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment standard)
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (requirements for hostile work environment prima facie case)
E.E.O.C. v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 221 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir.) (employer may act on honest belief of misconduct; impact on pretext analysis)
Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir.) (employer entitled to rely on mistaken but honest belief about employee misconduct)
Barnett v. Athens Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 550 F. App’x 711 (11th Cir.) (negative evaluations are not actionable absent material adverse effect)