## Facts

- Maria Garcia, a Hispanic woman, worked as a cook at a high school cafeteria operated by Garland Independent School District (GISD).
- Garcia alleged that coworkers and her supervisor, Patricia Anderson, made fun of Garcia’s accent and her difficulty pronouncing certain English words.
- Garcia alleged she was called “dumb” and a “crybaby” during workplace disputes.
- Garcia presented evidence that GISD had a policy stating language use would not be limited except for safety reasons.
- Despite that policy, Garcia alleged Anderson told kitchen employees they could not speak Spanish in the kitchen during work hours.
- Garcia alleged she received a heavier workload and less desirable assignments than non-Hispanic employees.
- Garcia sued GISD under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming a hostile work environment based on national origin.
- GISD moved for summary judgment, arguing Garcia could not show the alleged conduct was based on national origin or that it was severe or pervasive enough to be actionable.

## Issues

1. Whether Garcia produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the complained-of conduct occurred “because of” her Hispanic national origin.
2. Whether the alleged mocking of accent and pronunciation, the alleged restriction on speaking Spanish, and other workplace slights were severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment under Title VII.
3. Whether GISD was entitled to summary judgment on Garcia’s Title VII hostile work environment claim.

## Decision

- The court granted GISD’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held Garcia failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the alleged harassment was based on her national origin, rather than general workplace conflict or non-protected reasons.
- The court also concluded the alleged conduct, considered as a whole, did not meet the severe-or-pervasive threshold required for a Title VII hostile work environment claim.
- As a result, Garcia’s Title VII national-origin hostile work environment claim was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- To establish a hostile work environment under Title VII, a plaintiff must show unwelcome harassment based on a protected trait that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment, along with a basis to hold the employer liable.
- Workplace rudeness, personality conflicts, and non-trait-based name-calling generally do not establish harassment “because of” a protected characteristic.
- The severe-or-pervasive inquiry considers the totality of the circumstances, including frequency, severity, whether conduct is threatening or humiliating, and whether it interferes with work performance.
- Accent- or language-related comments can be linked to national origin, but a plaintiff must still present evidence permitting a reasonable inference of discriminatory motive and must satisfy the severe-or-pervasive requirement.
- A workplace language directive, standing alone and on the record presented, may be insufficient to establish a hostile environment without evidence that it reflected hostility toward a protected group or contributed to severe or pervasive harassment.

## Conclusion

The court granted summary judgment for GISD because Garcia’s evidence did not create a triable issue that the alleged teasing about her accent, the alleged restriction on speaking Spanish, and other alleged slights were motivated by national origin or were severe or pervasive enough to amount to an actionable hostile work environment under Title VII.


Garcia v. Garland Independent School District, 2013 WL 5299264 (2013)