Arroyo-Ruiz v. Triple-S Mgmt. Grp., Civil No. 15-1741 (FAB)
| Decision Date | 12 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 15-1741 (FAB) |
| Citation | 206 F.Supp.3d 701 |
| Parties | Luis ARROYO-RUIZ, Plaintiff, v. TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT GROUP, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Nicolas Nogueras-Cartagena, Nicolas Nogueras Law Offices, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Alberto Jose Bayouth-Montes, O'Neill & Borges LLC, Luis A. Nunez-Salgado, O'Neill & Borges, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Luis Arroyo-Ruiz ("Arroyo-Ruiz") brought this action against defendants alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").1 Plaintiff also invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate his claims pursuant to Puerto Rico state laws, Puerto Rico Law 100 ("Law 100"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 146 et seq. ; Puerto Rico Law No. 115 ("Law 115"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 194 et seq. ; Puerto Rico Law 80 ("Law 80"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 185a –185m ; and Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico ("Articles 1802 & 1803"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, §§ 5141, 5142. (Docket No. 32.) Defendants Triple-S Vida, Inc. ("Triple-S Vida"), Triple-S Insurance Co. ("Triple-S Insurance"), and Triple-S Management Group ("Triple-S Management") move to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (" Rule 12(b)(6)"). (Docket Nos. 20 at pp. 2-3; 33.) In addition, defendants move for the dismissal of all claims against Triple-S Insurance and Triple-S Management pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (" Rule 12(b)(1)"), arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by law. (Docket Nos. 20 at p. 2; 33.) Plaintiff opposes. (Docket No. 29.) For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), defendants may move to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The Court must decide whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In so doing, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Parker v. Hurley , 514 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir.2008). Although "the elements of a prima facie case may be used as a prism to shed light upon the plausibility of the claim," it is "not necessary to plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case" in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Rodriguez – Reyes v. Molina – Rodriguez , 711 F.3d 49, 54 (1st Cir.2013).
Rule 12(b)(1) allows a court to dismiss a complaint when the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction is not properly alleged. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The standard applied to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is similar to that of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the Court accepts the complaint's well-pled facts as true and views them—and the inferences drawn from them—in a light most favorable to the pleader. See Viqueira v. First Bank , 140 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir.1998) ; see alsoSoto v. McHugh , 158 F.Supp.3d 34, 45–46 (D.P.R.2016) (Gelpi, J.). Thus, "[a] district court must construe the complaint liberally." Aversa v. United States , 99 F.3d 1200, 1210 (1st Cir.1996).
The Court takes the following facts as true, as pled in plaintiff's amended complaint:
Prior to his termination, Arroyo-Ruiz worked for Triple-S Insurance for thirty-five years. (Docket No. 32 at p. 4.) During that time, he held various positions within the company. Id. Arroyo-Ruiz's health began to decline in 2005 after suffering an episode of cardiac arrest
. Id. The company then transferred Arroyo-Ruiz to various office locations. Id. In 2008, Arroyo-Ruiz was transferred to the Arecibo office, where he served as a staff supervisor overseeing four insurance agents. Id. Arroyo-Ruiz was placed under the direction of Carlos Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"). Id. at pp. 4-5. Although Arroyo-Ruiz had considerable success as a supervisor—his team had the best performance record in the district—Rodriguez told Arroyo-Ruiz that Arroyo-Ruiz's staff could become the highest performing team in the company if they worked under a younger staff supervisor. Id. at p. 4.
In March 2011, Arroyo-Ruiz became disoriented at work and fell to the ground. (Docket No. 32 at p. 4.) Arroyo-Ruiz's dizziness was attributed to an obstruction in his carotid artery
. Id. This illness required Arroyo-Ruiz to take six weeks of sick leave. Id. Following Arroyo-Ruiz's time away from work, he would regularly hear from co-workers that Rodriguez and other staff members would comment on his worsening health. Id. at p. 5. Additionally, any of plaintiff's co-workers who defended him would be ridiculed. Id.
On December 21, 2012, Arroyo-Ruiz underwent surgery for the insertion of a pacemaker. (Docket No. 32 at p. 5.) While Arroyo-Ruiz was recovering from the operation, he was notified by a co-worker that he had been reassigned to supervise new staff. Id. Arroyo-Ruiz wrote to Triple-S Company Director Edgar Diaz, Triple-S President Arturo Carrion, Human Resource Manager Mara Santiago and Rodriguez asking that he not be reassigned. Id. All responded by telling Arroyo-Ruiz that Rodriguez had the authority to reassign him. Id. Arroyo-Ruiz then contacted Agency Director Francisco Rivera and requested a review of the reassignment decision. Id. Rivera told Arroyo-Ruiz that he had to comply with Rodriguez's reassignment order or face termination. Id.
When Arroyo-Ruiz returned to work in February 2013, two members of his new staff quit, which rendered his team incomplete. (Docket No. 32 at p. 6.) Arroyo-Ruiz asked Rodriguez to recruit agents to fill the vacancies, but Rodriguez responded by telling Arroyo-Ruiz that it was his duty, as staff supervisor, to recruit new agents. Id. During this time, the negative comments about Arroyo-Ruiz's health persisted, and Rodriguez would frequently ask Arroyo-Ruiz to retire or seek a transfer to a different office. Id.
In July 2013, Rodriguez set a new sales objective for all staff supervisors. (Docket No. 32 at p. 6.) Arroyo-Ruiz told Rodriguez that it would be "impossible" for him to reach the new goal because he had only two agents on his staff. Id. Rodriguez responded by saying that any agent that could not reach the new goal "could go to hell." Id. Two days after this confrontation, Pedro Torres, Triple-S's Vice President, met with Arroyo-Ruiz to discuss Arroyo-Ruiz's decreasing performance. Id. Arroyo-Ruiz told Torres about his incomplete team and about his disagreement with Rodriguez regarding the new sales objective. Id. Torres did not take any action to rectify the situation. Id. at p. 7. Following the meeting with Torres, Arroyo-Ruiz contacted human resources and complained that Rodriguez had been harassing him since he began working at the Arecibo office. Id. The human resources office did not open an investigation. Id.
In August, 2013, Arroyo-Ruiz was told that his kidneys were not functioning properly and that he needed to undergo dialysis treatment. (Docket No. 32 at p. 7.) After Arroyo-Ruiz received this news, he contacted the company's director, Juan Iglesias, about retiring in 2014. Id. A month after contacting Iglesias, Arroyo-Ruiz was questioned about the reasons for his request for retirement. Id. Arroyo-Ruiz explained the problems surrounding his work environment and how it was adversely affecting his health. Id. Nothing resulted from the conversation. Id.
In December, 2013, Arroyo-Ruiz was told that he had to use the thirty-day vacation time he had accumulated. (Docket No. 32 at p. 7.) He requested that his vacation time be divided in half so that he would be able to visit his daughter in the early part of 2014, before he had to begin dialysis. Id. In March, 2014, he was notified that his vacation was not approved because his staff was incomplete and leaving was not possible. Id. Arroyo-Ruiz then requested Rodriguez's authorization of his retirement, but Rodriguez denied the request. Id. On April 8, 2014, however, Rodriguez handed Arroyo-Ruiz papers allowing him to take a two-week vacation, simultaneously informing Arroyo-Ruiz that he "would no longer have a staff" upon his return. Id. at p. 8. Arroyo-Ruiz then took his vacation to California to visit his daughter. Id. During the trip, he was hospitalized for three days. Id. Two days after leaving the hospital, he was hospitalized again for an additional six days. Id. The doctor ordered dialysis treatment and instructed Arroyo-Ruiz that he was not permitted to travel until the dialysis treatment had concluded. Id. Following the discharge after his second hospital visit, Arroyo-Ruiz contacted the Arecibo office and informed them of his health issues and asked if he had any remaining sick leave or vacation time. He was not afforded extended sick leave or vacation time. See Id. Rather, he received a letter indicating he had been terminated for insubordination and for having taken vacation without proper authorization. Id.
After receiving the termination letter, Arroyo-Ruiz filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 21, 2014. (Docket No. 20-1.) In 2015, he brought this action seeking relief pursuant to federal and Puerto Rico law. See Docket No. 32 at pp. 10-12.
Defendants first assert that all claims brought against Triple-S Insurance and Triple-S Management should be dismissed for lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Nat'l Univ. Coll.
...bar plaintiffs from bringing claims pursuant to Articles 1802 and 1803 based on the same alleged conduct." Arroyo-Ruiz v. Triple-S Mgmt. Grp., 206 F. Supp. 3d 701, 720 (D.P.R. 2016); see, also, Franceschi-Vázquez v. CVS Pharmacy, 183 F. Supp. 3d 333, 344 (D.P.R. 2016). Consequently, "an Art......
-
Lahens v. AT&T Mobility P.R., Inc.
...that he possessed the requisite qualifications and experience to serve as Sales Training Manager. See Arroyo-Ruiz v. Triple-S Mgmt. Grp., 206 F. Supp. 3d 701, 714 (D.P.R. 2016). Thus, Plaintiff was qualified for the Sales Training Manager position. As the final part of his prima facie burde......
-
Ramos v. Toperbee Corp.
...impairment "substantially limits" the identified major life activity. Id. ; see also Arroyo–Ruiz v. Triple–S Mgmt. Grp. , No. 15-1741, 206 F.Supp.3d 701, 711, 2016 WL 4734351, at *5 (D.P.R. Sept. 12, 2016)."Impairment" is defined by the EEOC as "[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, co......
-
Arroyo-Ruiz v. Triple-S Mgmt. Grp.
...major life activities," and that the impact rendered by his impaired health was substantial. See Arroyo–Ruiz v. Triple–S Mgmt. Grp., 206 F.Supp.3d 701, 713 (D.P.R. 2016) (Besosa, J.).2. Second ADA Discrimination Element: Qualified for the Position The second prima facie element of a disabil......