Mena–Valdez v. E.M. T–Shirts Distribs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 11–1255 (FAB). |
| Citation | 869 F.Supp.2d 252 |
| Parties | Ruben MENA–VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. E.M. T–SHIRTS DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ivan A. Ramos, Ramos & Soler, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.
Enrique J. Mendoza–Mendez, Mendoza Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs Ruben Mena–Valdez (“Mena” or “plaintiff”), Ivette Perez–Maldonado (“Perez”), and their conjugal partnership (collectively, “plaintiffs”) bring this action against Mena's former employer, E.M. T–Shirts Distributors, Inc. (“E.M. T–Shirts” or “defendant”), along with E. Mendoza & Co. Inc., Eduardo Mendoza Corporation, and Calcomanias Garneda, Inc., doing business as Supermercado de Camisetas (collectively, “co-defendants”), pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and 12112(b)(4) (“ADA”); the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (“FMLA”); and Law No. 80 of May 30, 1976 P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 185, et seq. (“Law 80”).
Pending before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 61.) For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
On March 3, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Mena's former employer, E.M. T–Shirts, alleging interference with protected rights and termination of employment without just cause under, inter alia, the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; Law 80; and Article 1802 of the Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 § 5141 (“Article 1802”). (Docket No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2011, (Docket No. 12), to which plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 30, 2011. (Docket No. 25.)
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 27, 2011. (Docket No. 21.) Plaintiffs added as co-defendants E. Mendoza & Co. Inc., Eduardo Mendoza Corporation, and Calcomanias Garneda, Inc., under the umbrella of Supermercado de Camisetas. Plaintiffs also added a claim under section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (“ERISA”). On July 5, 2011, E.M. T–Shirts filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, (Docket No. 30), which was later joined by co-defendants. (Docket No. 35.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on July 21, 2011, and defendants replied five days later. (Docket Nos. 38 & 41.)
Pursuant to a referral order issued by the Court, Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez filed a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) with regard to defendants' second motion to dismiss on March 23, 2012. (Docket No. 63.) The magistrate judge recommended that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted as to Mena's ERISA claim and both Mena's and Perez's Article 1802 claims. The magistrate judge also recommended that the Court deny defendants' motions to dismiss as to Mena's FMLA and Law 80 claims. (Docket No. 63 at p. 17.) On April 3, 2012, the Court adopted the findings of the R & R in an Opinion and Order. (Docket No. 68.)
On August 8, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. (Docket No. 46.) Plaintiffs added two discrimination claims under the ADA: one alleging employer discrimination predicated on Mena's ostensible disabilities, and the other alleging discrimination arising from plaintiff's relationship with his disabled daughter.2 (Docket No. 46 at ¶¶ 57–78.) Defendants answered the second amended complaint on August 11, 2011. (Docket No. 47.) On March 23, 2012, before Magistrate Judge Lopez submitted his R & R, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a statement of undisputed material facts, and a variety of supporting evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56 (“Rule 56”). (Docket No. 61.) The motion for summary judgment seeks to dismiss all of the allegations made by plaintiffs up to and included in their second amended complaint; because two of these claims have already been dismissed, (Docket No. 68), however, the Court need consider only the ADA claims, along with the FMLA and Law 80 claims that remain pursuant to the Court's original Opinion and Order.
Regarding those claims remaining before the Court, defendants argue (1) that there is no cause of action under the ADA; (2) that there exists no FMLA cause of action because defendants acted within their rights; and (3) that there is no cause of action under Law 80. (Docket No. 61.) On April 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, along with a statement of uncontested facts and supporting evidence. (Docket No. 75.) Finally, on June 13, 2012, defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' motion in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 80.)
Plaintiffs Mena and Perez are the legally married parents of I.M.P., a teenage girl. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 1; 75–9 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff Mena worked as a full-time warehouse employee for E.M. T–Shirts from February 1, 1999, until he resigned on August 2, 2010. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 2; 75–1 at ¶ 1.) E.M. T–Shirts, along with E. Mendoza & Co. Inc., Eduardo Mendoza Corporation, and Calcomanias Garneda, Inc., are clothing distributors and retailers doing business as Supermercado de Camisetas. (Docket Nos. 46 at ¶¶ 2–5; 47 at ¶¶ 2–5.) They are owned principally by Eduardo Mendoza–Vidal (“Mendoza–Vidal”) and Eduardo Mendoza–Fernandez (“Mendoza–Fernandez”). (Docket No. 46 at ¶¶ 2–5.)
In 2002 or 2003, plaintiffs' daughter was diagnosed with idiopathic scoliosis. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶¶ 3–4; 75–9 at ¶ 3.) This particular strain of scoliosis entails an abnormal curvature of the vertebral column, especially a lateral curvature. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 3; 75–9 at ¶ 3.) Both parties agree that E.M. T–Shirts has long been aware of I.M.P.'s condition. Indeed, defendant E.M. T–Shirts has never denied plaintiffs' daughter treatment under its medical insurance, and has covered various procedures, including orthopedic evaluations, radiological studies, magnetic-resonance-imaging studies, and yearly preparations of orthopedic casts and jackets. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶¶ 4–5; 75–9 at ¶ 4.) In 2010, Mena requested, and defendant granted, leave of absence without pay on June 17, June 24, July 8, and July 14; on each of these dates, plaintiff attended to the medical treatment of his daughter. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 14; 75–9 at ¶ 14; 74–1 at pp. 21–28.)
Despite granting Mena's unpaid leaves of absence, defendant declined to provide Mena with information regarding his rights under the FMLA. (Docket No. 75–9 at ¶ 8.) Because Mena was eligible for FMLA protection as a parent of a disabled child, he was entitled to a total of twelve workweeks of leave during a given twelve-month period. (Docket No. 63 at p. 5.) Mena was unaware of this privilege largely because E.M. T–Shirts did not outfit its facilities with any pamphlets, publications or posters about the FMLA. (Docket Nos. 63 at p. 3; 75–9 at ¶ 8.)
On July 20, 2010, plaintiffs' daughter underwent a complicated surgical procedure requiring posterior spinal fusion (T4–L3) with segmental instrumentation, thoracoplasty, bone-grafting and allo-grafting. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 6; 75–9 at ¶ 6.) The surgeon, Dr. Luis Pio Sanchez–Caso (“Dr. Sanchez”), certified in writing that the severity of the procedure required Mena to attend to the care of his daughter from July 19, 2010, until August 2, 2010. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 7; 75–9 at ¶ 7.) Mena met with Torres and requested leave from July 19, 2010, to August 2, 2010. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 8; 75–9 at ¶ 8.) In response to Mena's request, Torres did not inform Mena of the twelve weeks of intermittent leave afforded him by the FMLA. (Docket Nos. 75–9 at ¶¶ 8, 13 and 17; 75–3 at p. 2.) Torres also discussed plaintiff's request for leave with Yesenia Gago–Aponte (“Gago”), an employee in E.M. T–Shirt's human resources department, and instructed Gago to make unavailable any materials regarding the FMLA, ADA, or Fair Labor Standards Act. (Docket No. 75–3 at p. 2.)
On July 15, 2010, Mena submitted a signed request for leave of absence for July 19, 2010, through August 2, 2010. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 8; 74–1 at p. 10; 74–2 at p. 2.) The official form, completed by Mena, states the “reason for the request” as “vacation.” (Docket No. 74–2 at p. 2.) Furthermore, the form indicates that Mena requested “the payment of 0 days in cash.” Id.
Defendant granted Mena's leave of absence and deducted plaintiff's hours from his accrued paid vacation days. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 8; 75–9 at ¶ 13.) Between July 19, 2010, and August 2, 2010, Mena had no contact with anyone at E.M. T–Shirts. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 16; 74–1 at p. 11.) During the same period of time, Mena spent at least six days working as a security guard with Cuerpo de Seguridad Privada, Inc. (“Cuerpo”) (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶¶ 10–12; 75–9 at ¶¶ 10–12; 74–1 at pp. 6–8.) Both parties acknowledge that Mena held a second job at Cuerpo during his tenure at E.M. T–Shirts, and that his “moonlighting” as a security guard did not interfere with his day job. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 10; 75–9 at ¶ 10.) On several days between July 19, 2010, and August 2, 2010, plaintiff's work schedule at Cuerpo overlapped with the hours he typically spent at E.M. T–Shirts (Docket No. 61–1 at ¶ 12.)
On July 28 or 29, 2010, during her convalescence, plaintiffs' daughter suffered a postoperative complication. (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 17; 75–9 at ¶ 17.) Mena did not inform anyone at E.M. T–Shirts of this complication until August 2, 2010, nor did he request any additional leave. Id. Rather, on August 2, 2010, Mena resigned from his position at E.M. T–Shirts. Plaintiff's resignation letter states that he resigned “against [his] will and due to personal problems.” (Docket Nos. 61–1 at ¶ 17; 75–6 at p. 2.) Moreover, on the day of his resignation, Mena explained to Torres that he was leaving E.M. T–Shirts because of his daughter's poor health and because he thought he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romeo v. Town of Winthrop
... ... Autozone, ... Inc., 361 F.3d 62, 74 (1st Cir. 2004) (failure to ... Mena-Valdez v. E.M. T-Shirts Distribs., Inc., 869 ... F.Supp.2d 252, 262 (D.P.R. 2012) ... ...