Baez-Viera v. Rosa, Civil No. 08-2045 (JAG)
| Decision Date | 30 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 08-2045 (JAG) |
| Parties | ROSA BÁEZ-VIERA, et al., Plaintiff(s) v. COOPERATIVA ABRAHAM ROSA, et al., Defendant(s) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Before the Court are Defendant Cooperativa Abraham Rosa's Objections to Magistrate Judge Bruce McGiverin's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 93). Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., claims of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of Title VII ("PDA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), and related claims under Puerto Rico law.
The Court takes the facts from Magistrate Judge McGiverin's Report and Recommendation. Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact will be addressed in the section of this opinion titled "Discussion".
Defendant Cooperativa Abraham Rosa (hereinafter "Cooperativa") is a savings and credit cooperative with approximately 37 employees. Plaintiff Rosa Báez Viera, (hereinafter "Báez"), born on November 10, 1965, worked as a teller at Cooperativa from May 9, 1997 until her termination on June 8, 2007. Upon her termination, Báez was 41 years old.
Since 2001, Báez's immeDíate supervisor at Cooperativa was Lizette Colón (hereinafter "Colón"), the supervisor for all tellers. Báez was also indirectly supervised by Colón's superior, Vice-President Sol Matías Cortes (hereinafter "Matías"). The latter two were supervised by the Executive President, Defendant Luis López Roman, (hereinafter "López"). With the assistance and advice of Matías, Defendant López is the final decision maker on hiring and firing. Defendant López's ultimate decision to terminate Báez is the object of this suit.
On May 17, 2006, Báez, then six months pregnant, became ill at work and told Colón she was feeling agitated and scared. Colón testified that she told Báez to leave work if necessary. Báez testified that she was not permitted to leave until other tellers came back from their lunch breaks, and eventually left work around midday for her doctor's office. Colón did not inform Defendant López or Matías of Báez's departure from work.
Later that day, Báez gave birth to a premature infant that died tragically three or four days thereafter. Báez took maternity leave from May 18 to July 13, 2006.
Around February 2007, Báez learned she was pregnant again, and told her coworkers at Cooperativa. She later miscarried the pregnancy in May 2007.
While plaintiffs allege that the miscarriage occurred on Sunday, May 13, 2007 there is conflicting testimony about the exact date and about who informed Cooperativa about the incident. Báez's husband Ortiz testified that on the day of the miscarriage, Báez called him from her job; he took her to a clinic, then called Cooperativa and informed Colón of the miscarriage. However, Báez's obstetrician, Dr. Carlos Fonseca Salgado, testified that he treated Báez at Pavia Hospital on that day, and that the clinic where he had been seeing Báez is not open on Sundays. According to Báez, she was home that Sunday when she started bleeding, so she went to her doctor's office. Upon finding it closed, she called Dr. Salgado, who met her at Pavia's emergency room ("ER"). At the ER, Dr. Salgado examined Báez and could not find a fetal heartbeat.
Báez testified that she went home that night, but that the next morning, Monday, May 14, she went to the clinic and was sent to Pavia's ER. There, she learned she had miscarried thepregnancy and underwent a dilation and curettage ("D & C") procedure. Báez testified that she called Cooperativa before entering the ER. According to an affidavit by Báez, she informed Cooperativa she would miss work that day due to the D & C and later called back to give Colón an update, since Cooperativa requires employees to contact their direct supervisor to inform them of absences. However, according to Báez, she was informed that she had to speak to Matías instead. When the call was transferred to Matías, Matías, according to Báez, aggressively asked Báez when she would be returning to work and suggested she get a doctor's clearance to return to work.
The next day, Tuesday, May 15, 2007, Báez visited her doctor's office to get cleared for work. Accordingly, Dr. Salgado issued a pre-signed "Disability Certificate," which he authorized his secretary to fill out. Dr. Salgado testified, based on the certificate, that Báez was cleared to return to work on May 15, 2007. Báez returned to work on May 16, 2007, after two days of maternity leave, still bleeding heavily from the D & C procedure. Cooperativa received the Disability Certificate that day, but because the end date for Báez's incapacity had been left blank on the certificate, Matías spoke with Dr. Salgado's secretary and had his office fax Cooperativa an amended certificate that reflected an end date of May 15,2007. Matías testified that the blank date needed to be filled out in order to pay Báez two days' maternity leave. The parties dispute whether Báez authorized the amendment to the certificate. Dr. Salgado was not involved in the issuance of the amended certificate and testified that he did not remember authorizing his secretary to fill in the end date.
Báez attests she returned to work so promptly because she feared she would be fired if she did not. Colón testified that Báez told her she returned to work so quickly after the miscarriage because she had had many absences in the preceding months and did not want to continue missing work. According to Sherley Pagán Díaz (hereinafter "Pagán"), a teller at Cooperativa since 1999, López was annoyed by Báez's absences. According to Jamillette Delgado Martínez (hereinafter "Delgado") , also a teller, female employees thought it bad to become pregnant because the administration at Cooperativa frowned on the resulting absences and consequent costs.
On her return to work, Báez's coworkers, including Matías, asked whether she intended to become pregnant again. She expressed, as she had after losing the previous pregnancy, that she would. Though Defendant López denies knowledge of Báez's plans, according to Pagán, Báez's intentions were common knowledge at Cooperativa.Díaz During the period between January 1, 2006 and June 8, 2007, Báez was the only teller to become pregnant. Báez took two weeks of previously-scheduled vacation time from May 21 to June 4, 2007. She returned to work the week of June 4, 2007.
Colón begins the process of annual employee evaluations by preparing a draft using a standard form for each teller. After observations and suggestions by Vice President Matías, Colón prepares the final version of the evaluation and submits it to the Executive President, Defendant López. The Executive President reviews the evaluation and includes his comments for discussion with the employee's supervisor; he may also make changes to the evaluation. The employee's direct supervisor discusses the evaluation with the employee only after Defendant López's revision.
Colón provided Báez with a copy of her annual evaluation for 2007 sometime between May 16 and June 7, 2007. The evaluation gave Báez an overall score of "poor," which Báez had never before received, and which Colón had never before given a teller. Báez was graded as "average" in the areas of "knowledge, skill, and ability," "performance and productivity," and "quality," but "poor" in "compliance" and "responsibility," two areas in which she had been graded "good" in her last threeevaluations. According to López, the evaluation's section on "compliance," along with memoranda in Báez's employee file about her failure to follow procedures, reflected Cooperativa's progressive need to correct for account imbalances caused by Báez's errors. Báez signed the evaluation and did not express her internal disagreement with its contents, as she feared reprisal from Cooperativa's administration if she did not sign it. Báez had not expressed disagreement with previous years' evaluations, although her 2004, 2005, and 2006 evaluations had noted her need to improve performance, productivity, and/or attendance. Aside from a "poor" score in the area of "attendance and punctuality" in 2006, Báez's previous three evaluations gave her area scores that were mostly "good" or "excellent" in 2004 and 2005 and "average" or "good" in 2006, amounting to overall scores of "average" or "good." Báez had received salary increases in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
Colón testified that when she met with Matías about Báez's evaluation, Matías made notes on Colón's draft and said that due to the losses Báez had caused through register discrepancies, the "average" rating Colón had initially given Báez was wrong. Colón testified that Matías suggested changes in the areas of "compliance" and "responsibility," in which Colón had rated Báez as "average". Matías asked Colón to incorporate the suggestedchanges, which Colón did, resulting in a final overall rating of "poor" rather than the "average" overall score Colón testified Báez would have received but for Matías's changes. Cooperativa's management had never previously changed one of Báez's evaluations to reflect a "poor" score.
Defendant López approved Báez's evaluation without making any changes. According to López, it was his understanding that Colón alone prepared the evaluation.
Matías and Cooperativa's attorney met briefly with Báez at the end of the business day on Friday June 8, 2007, and handed her a letter of termination signed by Defendant López. According to the letter, Báez was terminated as a result of her latest evaluation, which, the termination letter noted, graded her as "poor" in execution and performance, meaning she "did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial