Fernandez v. Trees, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
961 F.3d 1148 (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Alexis Fernandez (plaintiff), who was Cuban, worked for Trees, Inc. (defendant), a company that trimmed and removed tree limbs near power lines and utility poles. Adam Soto supervised various Trees employees, including Fernandez and his crew. One day, Soto had a physical altercation with another Cuban worker. After that altercation, Soto began openly making derogatory comments about Cubans in front of his supervisees on a near daily basis. The comments frequently included vulgar language. At one point, Soto also stated, “new policy in the company, no more Cuban people.” Fernandez and others complained about Soto’s conduct to no avail. Approximately two months after the conduct began, Fernandez attempted suicide at a job site. Trees then terminated Fernandez. Fernandez sued Trees, asserting hostile-work-environment and national-origin-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Regarding the discrimination claim, Fernandez argued that Soto’s statement of a company policy against hiring Cubans constituted direct evidence that national-origin discrimination motivated Fernandez’s termination. The district court granted summary judgment in Trees’ favor on both claims, concluding that Soto’s conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile work environment and that Fernandez had failed to offer sufficient evidence that his termination resulted from national-origin discrimination. Fernandez appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pryor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 914,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.




