Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alcantara v. University of Houston

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

April 6, 2017




         This Title VII hostile work environment case is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 31] filed by Defendant University of Houston (“UH”), to which Plaintiff Adriana Alcantara filed a Response [Doc. # 32], and UH filed a Reply [Doc. # 33]. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, and her Title VII claim regarding the denial of tenure and the failure to provide mentoring and detailed annual reviews. UH now seeks summary judgment on the sole remaining claim in the case - a Title VII claim regarding a hostile work environment.

         The Court has carefully reviewed the full record in this case. Based on that review and the application of governing legal authorities, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. As a result, the Court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, a Hispanic female, is a neuroscientist. She began working for UH as a visiting professor in 2007. She later became an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology. Plaintiff was advised in May 2013 of the final decision to deny her tenure. Plaintiff's last date of employment with UH was May 31, 2013.

         In connection with the remaining hostile environment claim, Plaintiff alleges that she was harassed on the basis of her race and national origin by Dr. Leigh Leasure, a younger female professor.[1] Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Leasure interfered with her experiments and student recruitment efforts, yelled at her for no reason, and denied her use of essential lab equipment.


         Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits filed in support of the motion, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Puget Plastics Corp., 532 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 2008). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. See Hines v. Henson, 293 F. App'x. 261, 262 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 278 (5th Cir. 2004)). The Court construes all facts and considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Nat'l Union, 532 F.3d at 401.


         A plaintiff can state a Title VII claim when “discrimination based on membership in a protected class creates a hostile or abusive work environment.” See Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 66 (1986); Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 2002); Carr v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 665 F. App'x 335, 339 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016). “To establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, the plaintiff must prove that she: (1) belongs to a protected group; (2) was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on race [or other protected status]; (4) the harassment complained of affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take prompt remedial action.” Williams-Boldware v. Denton Cty., 741 F.3d 635, 640 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 106 (2014) (citing Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 651 (5th Cir. 2012)). UH seeks summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that any alleged harassment (1) was based on Plaintiff's race or national origin and (2) affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment.

         A. Harassment Based on Protected Status

         The third element of a hostile environment claim is that the harassment suffered by the Plaintiff was based on her membership in a protected class. A “bare allegation of harassment, unrelated to membership in any protected class, cannot form the basis of a Title VII claim.” Carr, 665 F. App'x at 339.

         In this case, Plaintiff has presented her own sworn evidence[2] that she is of “Hispanic descent, ” and that she was active in promoting the advancement of minorities, particularly Hispanics, in academia. Plaintiff has presented evidence that she was a member of a Social Science Working Group that sought to increase the number and success of minority women in the engineering, science, mathematics and behavioral science fields. Plaintiff has presented evidence that she offered to contribute to the UH Provost's “Ad Hoc Committee on the Hiring and Retention of Hispanic Faculty.” Plaintiff has stated under oath that UH personnel, including Dr. Leasure, viewed with disfavor her efforts on behalf of Hispanics. Plaintiff has stated under oath that the harassment by Dr. Leasure was based on Plaintiff's race and national origin, including her support for Hispanic employees at UH. Plaintiff states that UH, particularly the Psychology Department, had a history of not granting tenure to Hispanic professors.

         Plaintiff's evidence of a connection between the alleged harassment and her race and national origin is extremely thin. Nonetheless, drawing all inferences in Plaintiff's favor, the Court finds on this record that Plaintiff's evidence raises a sufficient issue of material fact on this element of a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.