9th Circuit upholds dismissal of federal employee's Title VII hostile work environment claim, ruling a…
Lapuebla v. Mullin
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of federal employee's Title VII hostile work environment claim, ruling a single Facebook post taken down within a week was not severe or pervasive enough.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment against Reynald LaPuebla, a plaintiff who sued the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection under Title VII for a hostile work environment. The court found that a single Facebook post, which remained online for at most one week before the agency ordered it removed, was neither severe enough nor pervasive enough to meet the legal standard for an objectively hostile workplace. Because LaPuebla could not show the conduct rose to the required level under either measure, his claim failed.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects federal employees who bring Title VII hostile work environment claims based on isolated social media incidents. It also provides guidance to federal agencies about how courts weigh corrective action, such as promptly removing offensive content, when evaluating whether a hostile work environment claim can proceed.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Reynald LaPuebla, a federal employee, sued the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection under Title VII, claiming he was subjected to a hostile work environment. The case centered on a Facebook post that contained crude and unwelcome comments. The district court granted summary judgment to the agency, and LaPuebla appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The legal question was whether the conduct LaPuebla experienced was objectively severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive working environment, which is what Title VII requires. Both sides agreed that LaPuebla personally found the conduct offensive, so only the objective standard was in dispute. The court applied a two-part analysis. On severity, the judges acknowledged the post was crude, unseemly, and unwelcome, but concluded it did not rise to the level of an extremely severe single incident, which is what the law requires when a claim rests on just one event. On pervasiveness, the court noted the post was online for at most one week before the agency ordered it deleted. The court rejected LaPuebla's argument, based on a prior case called Okonowsky, that social media posts are automatically pervasive because they can be viewed repeatedly. The court clarified that Okonowsky only recognized that social media conduct can count as workplace conduct, not that it is always pervasive. Because LaPuebla offered no evidence the post continued to circulate after it was removed, he could not show ongoing or recurring harm. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, including the agency's corrective action in ordering the post removed, the court found no genuine factual dispute that would allow the case to go to trial. The ruling was unanimous, and there was no dissent noted in the opinion. The court's disposition is marked not for publication and does not set binding precedent beyond the specific rules governing unpublished decisions.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNALD LAPUEBLA, No. 25-5188 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:19-cv-00097 v. MEMORANDUM* MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the District Court of Guam Michael J. Bordallo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 24, 2026 Honolulu, Hawaii Before: N.R. SMITH, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Reynald LaPuebla appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (collectively, the Agency) on * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. his Title VII hostile work environment claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, Bros. Mkt. LLC No. 2 v. United States, 172 F.4th 758, 764 (9th Cir. 2026), and we affirm. At the summary judgment stage, LaPuebla must present a genuine dispute as to whether the allegedly harassing conduct he experienced was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working environment.” EEOC v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc., 621 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2010); see Okonowsky v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1166, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2024). The conduct must be “both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.” Prospect Airport Servs., 621 F.3d at 997. The parties dispute only the objective requirement. In analyzing objective hostility, we consider “the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s claim,” including the severity and pervasiveness of the alleged conduct. Okonowsky, 109 F.4th at 1179. Because the required level of severity varies inversely with the pervasiveness of the conduct, a single event is actionable only if it is “extremely severe.” Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 926 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998). Here, the Facebook post incident was not sufficiently severe to alter the terms and conditions of LaPuebla’s employment. As crude, unseemly, and unwelcome as the comments on 2 25-5188 the post were, such comments fall short of constituting the extremely serious single incident that a claim based on severity alone would require. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788; Brooks, 229 F.3d at 926. Nor was the conduct sufficiently pervasive. It consisted of a single post that was online for at most a week before the Agency ordered the poster to delete it. See Brooks, 229 F.3d at 924 (“[A]n isolated incident of harassment by a co-worker will rarely (if ever) give rise to a reasonable fear that sexual harassment has become a permanent feature of the employment relationship. . . . [I]f the employer takes appropriate corrective action, it will not have ratified the conduct.”). Citing Okonowsky, LaPuebla argues that the conduct here was sufficiently pervasive because “[s]ocial media posts are permanently and infinitely viewable and re- viewable[.]” 109 F.4th at 1180. But Okonowsky only determined that harassment on social media may constitute conduct “occurring in” the workplace; it did not hold that social media posts are per se pervasive. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). LaPuebla does not argue that the post remains online, nor does he offer evidence that the photograph continued to circulate at his workplace after it was taken down, distinguishing this case from the recurring conduct we have held actionable. See, e.g., Zetwick v. Cnty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 438–39, 442 (9th Cir. 2017); Christian v. Umpqua Bank, 984 F.3d 801, 810–11 (9th Cir. 2020). In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the Agency’s response, 3 25-5188 LaPuebla has not created a genuine dispute as to whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Agency. AFFIRMED. 4 25-5188
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.