In Santana v. Telemundo Network Group, LLC et al, No. 22-13879, 2026 WL 180272 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that summary judgment was improper on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim under, e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Santana presented evidence that Soto engaged in repeated sexualized conduct, including physical contact, comments on her appearance, and sexual advances, both before and after she complained. The conduct was frequent and pervasive, extending beyond isolated incidents9 to near-daily inappropriate interactions. Santana described feeling humiliated, anxious, and uncomfortable, reflecting her subjective experience of harassment. Soto also repeatedly made sexually explicit comments, engaged in unwanted physical contact, and encroached upon Santana’s personal space, including putting his arm around her waist and grazing her leg. The record evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Santana, creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was subjected to severe or pervasive harassment because of her sex. A reasonable jury could find that the conduct she describes—including repeated derogatory and inappropriate comments, even when framed as “jokes,” and treatment not directed at male employees—was offensive and discriminatory. A jury could likewise conclude that Roldan’s sexually suggestive comments toward other employees, together with his tolerance of Soto’s harassment, contributed to a discriminatory work environment.
A jury also could decide that the conduct was not limited to a few isolated incidents but rather evidenced repeated sexualized conduct and its cumulative effect over time. A jury additionally could conclude that the post-leave incidents were not exclusively retaliatory, as the district court found, but also a form of sex-based harassment, making them a part of the totality of the circumstances the court was required to consider under Title VII. As such, genuine disputes of material fact remain as to this element.
The district court concluded that the instances of touching and inappropriate comments, taken together, did not rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness necessary to establish a hostile work environment claim. However, viewing the totality of the circumstances in Santana’s favor, as Miller requires, a reasonable jury could find otherwise. Considering all evidence relevant to Santana’s claim, both the pre- and post-notice incidents of harassment, a jury could conclude that the harassment she endured was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment.
Santana’s affidavit and deposition testimony describe repeated and escalating harassment that spanned multiple years, both before and after the Defendants acquired her former employer.10 Soto made frequent and explicit comments about Santana’s body and appearance, shared sexualized stories in her presence, and initiated unwanted physical contact, including placing his arm around her waist, grazing her leg, and standing in her personal space despite her clear objections. Santana testified that this conduct occurred on an almost daily basis, creating an environment she described as “degrading and humiliating.” Such repeated and targeted conduct is precisely the type of pervasive behavior that satisfies the frequency and severity components of the inquiry. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276–77 (explaining that repeated, targeted harassment, such as frequent offensive comments and unwanted physical contact, can satisfy the frequency and severity components of a hostile work environment claim, particularly when considered under the totality of the circumstances).
As to the objective component, a reasonable person in Santana’s position could likewise find the conduct hostile or abusive. See Bryant, 575 F.3d at 1297 (explaining that the objective element of a hostile work environment claim is evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would find the conduct hostile or abusive). The record evidence, when viewed in Santana’s favor, could support a finding that the harassment was frequent, occurring nearly every day over an extended period. A reasonable jury could additionally conclude that the conduct was not limited to offhand remarks but included repeated, unwanted physical contact, satisfying the severity factor even absent physical assault or threats. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276 (noting that repeated, targeted harassment, including verbal abuse and unwelcome physical contact, can satisfy the severity and frequency elements of a hostile work environment claim, even without physical assault or threats). The record additionally could support a finding that the conduct was not merely offensive; Santana described it as humiliating and degrading, and the record supports that characterization, particularly because Soto continued his behavior after she complained—conduct that could reasonably be viewed as intended to assert dominance and discourage further reporting. See Copeland, 97 F.4th at 777 (plaintiff’s credible testimony that harassment occurred nearly every day supports finding the conduct was frequent and severe). Moreover, a reasonable jury could conclude that the sexually charged environment was reinforced by Roldan, who tolerated Soto’s conduct and himself made sexually suggestive remarks in the workplace. As such, a jury could find that the combined effect of these behaviors created an environment that was not merely uncomfortable but actively degrading and exclusionary toward Santana as a woman.
A reasonable jury could additionally conclude that the harassment interfered with Santana’s ability to perform her job effectively. She testified that after rebuffing Soto’s advances, she faced reduced budgets, lost accounts, and reputational harm requiring her to “work harder” to recover lost business. evidence suffices to show that the harassment could be viewed as unreasonably interfering with her job performance. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276 (recognizing that harassment need not produce tangible effects on job performance to satisfy the objective severity inquiry, but evidence that the conduct unreasonably interfered with the employee’s ability to perform duties supports a hostile work environment claim).
The district court’s refusal to consider the post-leave incidents of harassment, reasoning that they were “motivated by retaliation rather than sex,” was also incorrect. A jury could conclude that the Defendants received actual notice of Soto’s prior harassment in April 2019 yet left him in place as Santana’s manager when she returned from medical leave. Santana’s affidavit describes that after her return, Soto continued his harassment, including repeated physical contact, despite knowing she had complained. A jury could reasonably infer that this post-notice conduct was at least partly motivated by the same sex-based hostility that had characterized his earlier behavior. See Edmondson, 43 F.4th at 1159 (explaining that whether a defendant’s conduct was motivated by the same wrongful animus as earlier acts is a question of fact for the jury and cannot be resolved at summary judgment). Excluding these incidents from the hostile work environment analysis was in error, as they form part of the continuous pattern of sex-based mistreatment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276–77 (recognizing that repeated, unwanted conduct contributes to a continuous pattern of harassment and should be considered as part of the overall hostile work environment).
Viewed together, the pre- and post-notice conduct depicts an environment in which Santana was subjected to persistent, humiliating, and intimidating treatment that materially altered the conditions of her employment. Her affidavit satisfies the subjective component by describing her humiliation and distress, while the objective evidence supports a finding that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive under controlling precedent. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1275–77 (finding that repeated, humiliating, and degrading ethnic harassment that was pervasive in the workplace satisfied both the objective and subjective components of a hostile work environment claim); see also Bryant, 575 F.3d at 1297 (explaining that whether conduct is severe or pervasive is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances and in context, and that objective evidence of harassment can support a finding of a hostile work environment).
(Cleaned up.)
Based on this, the court held that “a reasonable jury could thus conclude that the harassment Santana endured altered the terms and conditions of her employment, rendering summary judgment improper.”
As to employer liability, the court further held that the district court a reasonable jury “erred in concluding that no reasonable jury could hold the Defendants accountable for maintaining or permitting the hostile work environment Santana endured.”