Rodriguez v. Procter & Gamble Co.
Decision Date | 10 June 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 17-22652-CIV-WILLIAMS |
Parties | David M. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Burth G. Lopez, Pro Hac Vice, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., David Lopez, Sally J. Abrahamson, Pro Hac Vice, Outten Golden, Washington, DC, Jason Seth Mazer, Cimo Mazer Mark, Miami, FL, Nina Martinez, Pro Hac Vice, Ossai Miazad, Michael N. Litrownik, Pro Hac Vice, Paul W. Mollica, Pro Hac Vice, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY, Nina Perales, Pro Hac Vice, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., San Antonio, TX, Thomas A. Saenz, Pro Hac Vice, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, Griselda Vega Samuel, Pro Hac Vice, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), for Plaintiff.
Anna Price Lazarus, Lash & Goldberg LLP, Juan Carlos Enjamio, Hunton & Williams, Daniel Joseph Butler, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Procter and Gamble's motion for summary judgment (DE 106). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (DE 116) and Defendant filed a reply (DE 119). For the reasons discussed below, the motion (DE 106) is DENIED .
In 1998, Plaintiff David Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), a Venezuelan native, entered the United States on a tourist visa at age 14. (DE 104-2 at 10-11.) Rodriguez fled Venezuela to escape the increasing violence from the attempted coups led by Hugo Chavez. (Id. at 9.) His family, fearful of the political situation and concerned for his safety, had encouraged him to leave the country. (Id. ) Upon arriving to the United States, Rodriguez lived with an aunt and cousin in Kendall, a neighborhood in Miami-Dade County, Florida. (Id. at 11-12.) Since then, Rodriguez has remained in South Florida and has never returned to Venezuela; he considers himself as having "[grown] up here in the United States" and as being "from the United States." (Id. at 15, 183.)
Plaintiff graduated from the magnet school, G. Holmes Braddock Senior High School in 2002, and for a few years before college, he worked in restaurants, tutored students, and took on "odd jobs." (Id. at 41-43.) In 2008, he enrolled at Florida International University ("FIU") as a part-time student. (Id. at 45, 48.) While earning his degree, he worked as a bartender and paid for his tuition with his earnings. (Id. at 48-49, 227.) At FIU, Rodriguez was a member of the Association of Latino Professionals for America and participated in community service through the United States Bartender Guild. (Id. at 63-64.) His academic performance placed him on the University's Dean's List and he also won a scholarship essay award. (Id. at 57.) In Spring 2017, he graduated with a 3.96 GPA and received a Bachelor's degree in business administration with concentrations in finance and real-estate finance. (Id. at 53, 56-58, 64.) After college, Rodriguez was hired at a real-estate company as a leasing and marketing professional. (Id. at 103.)
In 2012, Rodriguez applied, and was approved for, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival ("DACA") program. (Id. at 30-31.) He also obtained an employment authorization document ("EAD"), which allowed him to work in the country legally. (Id. at 31.) Rodriguez has since renewed his DACA status and work authorization every two years. (Id. at 32.) In September 2013, several months after receiving work authorization, Rodriguez applied for a finance and accounting internship position at Procter and Gamble ("P&G" or "Company").
This case arises from Rodriguez's rejection from this position due to P&G's policy that "applicants in the U.S. should be legally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or location of employment." (DE 105 at ¶ 55.)1
Procter and Gamble is a global business that manufactures and distributes a large variety of consumer products. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Employees in the Company are organized by product categories (e.g. , oral care, feminine care, baby care) and function (e.g. , legal, human resources, sales, and IT). (Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.) P&G employs over 90,000 employees worldwide, including over 20,000 in the United States. (Id. at ¶ 4.) At the heart of this case is P&G's hiring policy for non-citizen applicants for its internship program. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the Company's policy of automatically rejecting, at the first step of the application process, all non-U.S. citizen applicants, unless they are permanent residents, asylees, or refugees. He asserts that the policy is discriminatory on the basis of alienage under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" Section 1981").
P&G's recruitment of interns and entry-level employees is guided by its "develop-from-within" hiring philosophy, which aims to hire candidates for long-term careers at the Company. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) While P&G internships last for only ten to twelve weeks (DE 117-1 at ¶ 73), the Company characterizes its intern hiring as more than just a short-term employment scenario. (DE 105 at ¶¶ 9, 10.) Rather, through the internship program, P&G seeks to identify, and subsequently hire for full-time employment, those interns who have demonstrated the ability to succeed at the Company, and with the potential for long-term careers. (Id. at ¶ 10.) P&G states that it invests substantial funds in the recruitment, hiring, and training of interns and recruits at many universities, including those with large immigrant populations, such as FIU. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12-13.)
The application process for P&G's internship program begins with an online application, which includes a questionnaire about the applicant's background. (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15.) An applicant may be automatically rejected based on answers to specific questions, including those regarding his or her immigration status, graduation year, willingness to travel and relocate, and coursework. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 17.) Applicants who are not automatically rejected may proceed to the next phases of the hiring process, which involve assessment tests, an initial interview, and a second interview. (Id. at ¶¶ 19, 20, 23.) P&G usually hires a very small percentage of intern applicants; generally 40,000 candidates apply each year, and only 300-500 are hired. (Id. at ¶ 26.)
Since at least 2013, P&G has asked immigration-related questions in its online application to automatically cull out certain non-citizen applicants. (Id. at ¶ 29.) In fiscal year 2013–2014, when Plaintiff applied for an internship position, applicants were required to answer the following questions:
(Id. at ¶ 30.) Applicants who answered "NO" to the first question or "YES" to the second or third questions were automatically rejected. (Id. at ¶ 31.) In fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, the application included an additional immigration question: "Are you an individual admitted exclusively on a nonimmigrant visa, such as a B, H, O, E, TN or L or an individual on the F-1 visa completing CPT (Curricular Practical Training) or OPT (Optional Practical Training)?" (Id. at ¶ 32.) Those who answered "YES" were automatically rejected. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Starting in 2016, P&G ceased asking questions regarding applicants’ immigration status. (Id. at ¶¶ 34-38.) Instead, the only immigration-related question posed to applicants was whether they required, or will require in the future, U.S. employment visa sponsorship.2 (Id. ) Those who answered "YES" were automatically rejected. (Id. )
In the summer of 2013, while Rodriguez was a student at FIU, he received a newsletter with information about an on-campus presentation on internship opportunities at P&G. (Id. at ¶ 48.) He attended the meeting, led by Eduardo Moreno, a FIU graduate who worked for P&G, and Jose Nunez, a FIU student who had interned at the Company. (Id. at ¶¶ 49-50.) Rodriguez explained that as someone who was not born in the United States, he felt welcomed by P&G at that presentation. (DE 104-2 at 122-23.) He recalled that the presenters had explained that the Company did not offer work sponsorship, but did not remember them making any other immigration-related comments. (Id. ) After the presentation, Rodriguez kept in touch with Moreno, who answered his questions and gave him feedback on his resume. (Id. at 130-131.)
In September 2013, Rodriguez applied for a finance and accounting internship at P&G. (DE 105 at ¶ 52.) While completing the online questionnaire, Rodriguez was asked whether he was a U.S. citizen, permanent resident, asylee, or refugee. (Id. at ¶ 53.) Rodriguez was automatically rejected from the internship, and barred from proceeding to subsequent stages of the application process, because he answered "NO." (Id. at 54; DE 117-1 at ¶ 67.) He received a formal rejection email on October 3, 2013. (DE 117-1 at ¶ 69.) On October 8, 2013, Rodriguez also received an email from P&G stating, "unfortunately, per P&G policy, applicants in the US should be legally authorized to work with no restraints on the type, duration, or location of employment." (DE 105 at ¶ 55; DE 117-1 at ¶ 68.)
On June 15, 2012, Secretary of Homeland...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas v. United States
...recent decision of a federal district court in Florida supports Texas's injury and causation arguments. Rodriguez v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 465 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2020), motion to certify appeal denied , 499 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2020). In that case, the court considered whet......
-
State v. United States
...million new workers is certainly worth recording.[53] DACA's impact on employment issues is certainly magnified by the ruling in Rodriguez, 465 F.Supp.3d at 1301. As above, the court in that case held that Procter & Gamble ("P & G") could not limit its applicant pool for its internship prog......
-
Sailboat Bend Sober Living, LLC v. City of Fort Lauderdale
...Cty. , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1740, 207 L.Ed.2d 218 (2020) (emphasis added); see also Rodriguez v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 465 F.Supp.3d 1301, 1320 (S.D. Fla. June 10, 2020) ("Intentional discrimination can be established by a facially discriminatory policy: one that explicitly appl......
-
Hayes v. DeSantis
...be required, they have to come from positive law and not through the Equal Protection Clause."); see also Rodriguez v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 465 F. Supp. 3d 1301, 1327 (S.D. Fla.), mot. to cert. app. denied , 499 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2020) ("While disabled individuals are not a ‘sus......