Saldivar v. Collins

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
RAQUEL SALDIVAR,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-076
DOUGLAS ALLEN COLLINS, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans
Affairs,
Defendant.
RAQUEL SALDIVAR,
Plaintiff,
VS.
DOUGLAS ALLEN COLLINS, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans
Affairs,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-118
ORDER
In this action, Plaintiff Raquel Saldivar alleges claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging sexual harassment, a hostile work
environment, and retaliation. She brings suit against Douglas Allen Collins, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. (Saldivar’s Motion, Doc. 47
(seeking summary judgment as to causes of action for hostile work environment and retaliation);
Defendant’s Motion, Doc. 48 (seeking summary judgment as to all claims))
A Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant summary judgment in the
Defendant’s favor. (R&R, Doc. 55) Saldivar objects to the Report and Recommendation on several
grounds. When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, the district court applies de
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:23-cv-00076 Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
novo review as to the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Battle v. United
States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Here, given the breadth of Saldivar’s
objections, the Court applies de novo review to the entirety of the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has considered Saldivar’s objections, which in large measure re-assert the
arguments that she presented to the Magistrate Judge. Based on the record and the applicable
law, the Court agrees with the analysis that the Magistrate Judge applied and the conclusion
reached in the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has considered all of Salvidar’s objections, but provides the following
observations on two of them.
On the issue of her claim alleging a hostile work environment, Saldivar argues that the
Report and Recommendation applied the incorrect standard by requiring Saldivar to show that
the alleged harassment was “severe and pervasive,” rather than “severe or pervasive.” (Objections,
Doc. 58, ¶¶ 32–33). The Court disagrees. The Report and Recommendation correctly explains
that “[f]or harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the
conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’” (R&R, Doc.
55, 11 (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986)); id. at 12 (“The
allegations do not suggest that the conduct Saldivar was exposed to was so severe or pervasive it
affected her employment.”)) Even if the Report and Recommendation includes some citations to
decisions that at times utilized the phrase “severe and pervasive,” the analysis reflects the correct
disjunctive standard.
Saldivar also objects that the Report and Recommendation relies on inapposite cases that
involved fewer incidents of alleged harassment than the five incidents on which Saldivar relies.
(R&R, Doc. 55, ¶¶ 36–43) On this point, the Report and Recommendation correctly applied a
“totality of the circumstances” test that includes several factors. (R&R, Doc. 55, 12 (quoting
E.E.O.C. v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc., 496 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2007)) Saldivar attempts to
distinguish some cases by the number of alleged incidents. But this focus misses the mark. The
Case 1:23-cv-00076 Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Report and Recommendation accurately analyzed whether the totality of the circumstances that
the summary judgment evidence reflected could create a genuine issue of material fact on the
issue of a hostile work environment. The summary judgment record, when compared to the
relevant caselaw, does not include such evidence. Saldivar fails to create a fact issue on this
essential element.
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff Raquel Saldivar’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55), which the Court ADOPTS. As a result, it is:
ORDERED that Plaintiff Raquel Saldivar’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is
DENIED; and
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) is GRANTED as
to all causes of action that Plaintiff Raquel Saldivar alleges.
Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.
This is a final and appealable order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Signed on March 31, 2026.
____________________________
Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.
United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00076 Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3