Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—NATIONAL ORIGIN—S.D. Fla.: Haitian-American victim’s advocate who refused to testify in internal affairs investigation advances claim, (Sep 17, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although the employee did not identify a proper comparator, she presented other circumstantial evidence sufficient enough to survive summary judgment.

Denying the City of North Miami’s motion for summary judgment against the Title VII national origin discrimination claim asserted by a former victim’s advocate who worked in the police department, a federal district court in Florida found she had presented a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence, including a remark by a detective that she was “sticking with her own kind, the Haitians,” sufficient to advance her claim. The court did, however, grant the motion as to her Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims, finding she did not present more than a scintilla evidence as to the former and had failed to address the latter in her response (Jean-Francois v. The City of North Miami, No. 25-cv-20048-BLOOM/Elfenbein (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2026)).

The employee in this case identifies as Haitian-American. She was hired as a crisis intervention specialist, or victim’s advocate, by the City of North Miami in 2011.

2021 incident. On February 12, 2021, the employee was involved in an incident with two detectives wherein she alleged that she was “almost physically attacked.” The incident allegedly stemmed from the employee refusing to be a witness for one of the detectives in a previous internal affairs investigation. The employee reported the incident to the police chief that same day.

In return, the detectives reported certain incidents and behaviors of the employee. After an investigation into those claims, the employee read in a report that one of the detectives had stated in an interview that “I guess [Plaintiff] don’t want to deal... with us. She’s sticking with her kind, the Haitians.”

Complaint. On April 5, 2021, the employee filed a complaint of discrimination with the Florida Commission of Human Relations (FCHR). The internal investigation into her and the detectives’ complaints was ongoing at the time. Ultimately, the internal investigation, on May 6, concluded there was no evidence of a hostile work environment. The FCHR concluded its investigation on October 5, 2021, finding no reasonable cause for discrimination.

Disciplinary measures. Around August 17, 2021, the employee was sent home for 24 hours without pay, purportedly because of an incident involving the retrieval of folders related to the Department’s Victims of Crime Act invoices. A few weeks later she was issued a written reprimand and suspended for 32 hours without pay.

On September 28, 2021, the employee received another disciplinary notice and an 80-hour suspension for the unauthorized release of confidential information and for interfering with an ongoing investigation.

Then, on November 2, 2021, the employee filed another charge of discrimination with the FCHR, again citing the February incident that she raised in her first charge as well as the August 17 incident.

On November 8, 2021, a commander emailed the employee requiring her attendance at a fundraising event on an upcoming Saturday. The employee responded that she could not be compelled to work on weekends. This led to another disciplinary notice that was issued on April 7, 2022. The employee refused to sign the notice.

Notice of termination. One day after the April 7 disciplinary notice was issued, the department issued a notice of intent to terminate based on the employee’s refusal to sign the disciplinary notices linked to her refusal to attend the fundraising event and the internal affairs investigation. The employee then filed another charge of discrimination on November 14, 2022.

On February 6, 2023, the department finalized the employee’s termination. She appealed to the city’s personnel board, which found that her refusal to sign the disciplinary notices should not constitute insubordination. It recommended that she be reinstated. However, her prior position had already been filled, and she was placed in the role of office administrator for the mayor and city council office at the same rate of pay as her previous role. She refused to accept the position and was given back pay at the board’s recommendation.

Subsequently, the employee filed another charge of discrimination with the Miami-Dade Commission on Human Rights and later filed this lawsuit, claiming that the detectives with whom she had the conflict leading up to the aforementioned events had been disciplined multiple times for insubordination, but retained their employment, and that she was singled out by her supervisors. She asserted claims for national origin discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.

Convincing mosaic. First, the court addressed the employee’s claim for national origin discrimination. To establish this claim, the employee relied on a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence pointing to, among other things, the fact that she was never disciplined for insubordination during her first decade of employment, the incident involving the detectives’ alleged intimidation after she refused to proffer favorable testimony to internal affairs, and the national origin comment made by the one detective that she was “sticking with her kind, the Haitians.”

In response, the city asserted that these complaints concerned unrelated workplace disputes that did not involve her national origin. However, the court explained that she need only show that her national origin was a motivating factor, not the motivating factor. When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the employee, a reasonable jury could infer that discrimination was a motivating factor, said the court. Further, the employee pointed to disputed evidence that undermined the city’s claim that insubordination justified the disciplinary actions and termination.

As to the city’s arguments that the employee failed to establish a convincing mosaic with regard to this claim, the court was unconvinced. The city contended that the evidence was insufficient to infer intentional discrimination because the officer did not proffer a proper comparator, and the national origin statement made by the detective was inconsequential because it was made by a nondecisionmaker outside of the employee’s presence. However, the court noted that a plaintiff need not identify a comparator to survive a motion for summary judgment and that the other circumstantial evidence proffered by the employee was enough to advance her claim for national origin discrimination.

Retaliation. Next, the court addressed the employee’s claim for retaliation. Because the employee did not argue that she established a prima facie case of retaliation, she was not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of illicit intent. Thus, the court analyzed whether she had proffered evidence that would permit a reasonable juror to infer that retaliation was a but-for cause of the department’s adverse actions. The court concluded that she had not.

Here, the court considered only the adverse actions that occurred after the employee had engaged in protected activity, including those actions occurring between the April 2021 and November 2, 2021, charges of discrimination. The evidence showed that the employee received disciplinary actions four to six months after filing the April charge and five months after filing the November charge. The court found this timeline was not so tenuous as to negate causation at summary judgment. However, the court determined that the employee failed to present a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence such that a reasonable jury could infer retaliation.

“Although circumstantial evidence supports an inference that Defendant’s insubordination rationale was pretext, Plaintiff does not point to evidence that shows that her superiors had knowledge of her Charges prior to the disciplinary actions and that she would not have faced discipline but-for those Charges,” said the court. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against this claim.

Hostile work environment. Finally, the court considered the employee’s claim for a hostile work environment. Here, the court found the employee effectively abandoned this claim by failing to address any of the city’s arguments against this claim in her response. To the extent that the response did address this claim, the employee again relied on the same convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence undergirding her other two claims. The court explained that the Eleventh Circuit has not adopted the convincing mosaic theory as to hostile work environment claims and thus granted the city’s motion for summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 25-cv-20048-BLOOM/Elfenbein.

Judge: Bloom, B.

Attorneys: G. Ware Cornell, Jr. (Cornell & Associates) for Natacha Jean-Francois. Brett Jeremy Schneider (Weiss Serota Helfman Cole Bierman & Popok) for The City of North Miami.

Companies: The City of North Miami, Florida

Cases: Discrimination NationalOrigin Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation FloridaNews