Lahens v. AT&T Mobility P.R., Inc.
Decision Date | 17 December 2020 |
Docket Number | CIVIL NO.: 18-1776 (MEL) |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Parties | FÉLIX LAHENS, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY PUERTO RICO, INC., et al. Defendant. |
On February 3, 2020, AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a motion for summary judgment against Mr. Félix Lahens ("Plaintiff'). ECF No. 46. On September 8, 2020, the court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's federal claims pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et. seq.; Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq.; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq. ECF No. 88, at 44-45. The court also dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's Puerto Rico law claims under Title 29, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 146 ("Law 100"); Title 1, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 501 ("Law 44"); and Title 29, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 194 ("Law 115"). Id. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining Puerto Rico Law claims under Title 31, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 5141 ("Article 1802") and Title 29, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 185a ("Law 80") which were dismissed without prejudice. Id.
Pending before the court is Defendant's motion for reconsideration requesting that the court reconsider its ruling and dismiss Plaintiff's Puerto Rico law claims under Law 80 and Article 1802 with prejudice. ECF No. 92, at 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 98.
Defendant requests that the court reconsider its decision and dismiss Plaintiff's Law 80 claim with prejudice. ECF No. 92, at 3-5. Defendant argues that dismissal with prejudice is warranted because Plaintiff would be precluded from bringing a Law 80 claim under collateral estoppel due to the court's finding that Defendant proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination. Id. at 4. "Puerto Rico Law 80 prohibits dismissal of employees without just cause." Hoyos v. Telecorp Comm., Inc., 488 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Alvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi Cola of P.R. Bottling Co., 152 F.3d 17, 28 (1st Cir. 1998)); 29 L.P.R.A. § 185a. The following burden-shifting framework is applicable to Law 80 claims:
(1) the employee must [first] show that he or she has been discharged and allege that the dismissal was not justified; (2) the burden then shifts to the employer to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the dismissal was justified; and (3) if the employer shoulders that burden, the employee must rebut the showing of good cause.
García-García v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 878 F.3d 411, 420 (1st Cir. 2017) (citing Echevarría v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 856 F.3d 119, 140 (1st Cir. 2017)).
"Good cause for dismissal is related to the proper and normal operation of the establishment." Hoyos, 488 F.3d at 6 (citing 29 L.P.R.A. § 185b); Álvarez-Fonseca, 152 F.3d at 28 (). "The statute provides six examples of just cause, including three that relate to company restructuring or downsizing." Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 812 F.3d 195, 196(1st Cir. 2016) (citing 29 L.P.R.A. § 185b(d), (e), (f)). Law 80 specifies, in pertinent part, that the following grounds are considered good cause for termination:
29 L.P.R.A. § 185b(d), (e), (f). "If an employer terminates employees for one of those three reasons, however, the employer must give preference to those employees with greater seniority over those with less seniority within the same occupational classification." Carrasquillo-Ortiz, 812 F.3d at 196 (citing 29 L.P.R.A. § 185c).
ECF No. 47, at 18, ¶ 81; ECF No. 47-1, at 5, ¶ 24. The evidence shows that beginning in 2016 "AT&T" underwent a restructuring of its operations in Puerto Rico to integrate AT&T Mobility's and DIRECTV's operations. ECF No. 68-1, at 1, ¶ 4. Prior to the integration, DIRECTV had retained the services of London Consulting to do an efficiency assessment of its operations. ECF No. 68, at 37, ¶ 1; ECF No. 68-1, at 1, ¶ 4, at 2, ¶ 7. In October and November 2015, London Consulting recommended a reorganization of DIRECTV's structure and the elimination of various positions, including Plaintiff's position of Sales Training Manager, which would result in cost reductions. ECF No. 68, at 37, ¶ 1; ECF No. 68-1, at 1-2, ¶¶ 4, 6; ECF No. 68-2. In July 2017, the Decisional Unit adopted London Consulting's recommendations to eliminate the positions included in its efficiency assessment of operations for the third reduction in force. ECF No. 68, at 36, ¶ 95; ECF No. 68, at 37, ¶ 2; ECF No. 68-1, at 1-2, ¶¶ 4-9.
The discharge of an employee as a result of a reduction in force due to reorganization changes constitutes a valid reason of just cause under Law 80 because it is related to the "proper and regular operations of an establishment." See 29 L.P.R.A. § 185b; Sanchez Borgos v. Venegas Const. Corp., Civ. No. 07-1592, 2009 WL 928717, at *7 (D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2009) ) ; Cruz v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. PR, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 2d 321, 339 (D.P.R. 2011) ( ); Soto v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 73 F. Supp. 2d 116, 124, 132 (D.P.R. 1999) ( ).
Furthermore, "an employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason proffered to sustain its burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework constitute[s] good cause under Law No. 80." See Micheo Acevedo v. Stericycle of Puerto Rico, Inc., Civ. No. 19-1652, 2020 WL 1126168, at *5 (D.P.R. Mar. 6, 2020) (citing Sanchez Borgos, 2009 WL 928717, at *7); McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-805 (1973). In the case at hand, the court analyzed Plaintiff's ADEA claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework and found that "Defendant has satisfied its step two burden because its proffered reason that Plaintiff's employment was terminated due to the reduction in force within the context of a restructuring of its operations constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination." ECF No. 88, at 28. Therefore, Defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff was discharged as a result of reorganization changes which constitutes just cause under Law 80. See 29 L.P.R.A. § 185b(e); Sanchez Borgos, 2009 WL 928717, at *7.
To continue reading
Request your trial