Caballero v. Oriental Bank
| Decision Date | 25 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 16-2952 (GAG) |
| Parties | WILBERT REYES CABALLERO Plaintiff, v. ORIENTAL BANK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
On November 9, 2016 Wilbert Reyes Caballero ("Plaintiff" or "Reyes Caballero") brought this action against Oriental Bank ("Defendant" or "Oriental") alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff also invokes the Court's supplemental jurisdiction to bring claims under Puerto Rico Law 100 of June 30, 1959 ("Law 100"), P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, §§ 146 et seq.; Puerto Rico Law 80 of May 30, 1976 ("Law 80"), P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, §§185a et seq., and Law 115 of December 20, 1991 ("Law 115"), P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 194a. Essentially, Plaintiff claims that he was terminated from Oriental because of his age and retaliated against after filing an age discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Unit (AUD). (Docket No. 1).
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 46). Defendant claims that Reyes Caraballo failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under ADEA because: (1) he was not qualified to continue employment at Oriental for failing to report suspicious activity involving possible money laundering, and (2) Oriental acted age-neutrally when it terminated him. Id. Additionally, Defendant Oriental puts forward that, even if Plaintiff established a prima facie claim under ADEA, the proffered reasons for his termination were neither pretextual nor discriminatory. (Docket No. 46).
Reyes Caraballo opposes, arguing that Oriental's alleged non-discriminatory reason for his dismissal cannot be used as a factor in ADEA's prima facie stage. (Docket No. 60). Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that age was not treated neutrally since both employees terminated were within ADEA's protected age. As to the pretext argument, Plaintiff posits that Oriental's internal investigation demonstrates inconsistencies into his alleged violation to the bank's anti-money laundering policy and that this underscores that he was indeed terminated because of his age. Id. Defendant thereafter replied. (Docket No. 63).
After careful review of the parties' submissions and pertinent law, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 46).
Before turning to the merits of the summary judgment motion, the Court briefly addresses several issues regarding Defendant's proposed statement of facts for this case. Oriental proposes a statement of eighty-seven uncontested material facts. (Docket No. 46-1). Plaintiff denies fifteen proposed facts, qualifies twenty and admits the rest. (Docket No. 59). In response to Plaintiff's objections, Oriental puts forward that Plaintiff failed to properly deny or qualify them as required by Local Rule 56(b) given that Plaintiff's responses include additional facts that are not directly related to its proposed facts. (Docket No. 63). Defendant specifically asks the Court to deem as uncontested several facts. Id. Finally, Plaintiff presents eleven separate, additional facts regarding Oriental's human resource investigation that led to his eventual termination.
Local Rule 56(b) requires a party moving for summary judgment to include a "statement of material facts, set forth in numbered paragraphs, as to which the moving party contends there is nogenuine issue of material fact to be tried." L. CV. R. 56(b). The opposing party "shall admit, deny or qualify the facts supporting the motion for summary judgment." Id. This allows the court "to easily determine the disputed facts." Malave-Torres v. Cusido, 919 F. Supp. 2d 198, 207 (D.P.R. 2013). Furthermore, "a party's denial or qualification of a proposed fact must be strictly limited to the issue therein raised." Natal Pérez v. Oriental Bank & Tr., 291 F. Supp. 3d 215, 219 (D.P.R. 2018) (emphasis added). The opposing party "shall support each denial or qualification by a record citation." Id. If the facts are not properly controverted, they shall be deemed admitted and uncontroverted. L. CV. R. 56(e). See also Bautista Cayman Asset Co. v. J.A.M.A. Dev. Corp., 322 F. Supp. 3d 266, 267-68 (D.P.R. 2018); Puerto Rico Am. Ins. Co. v. Rivera-Vázquez, 603 F.3d 125, 130 (1st Cir. 2010).
Even though the primary purpose of Local Rule 56 "is to relieve the district court of any responsibility to ferret through the record to discern whether any material fact is genuinely in dispute," CMI Capital Mkt. Inv., LLC v. González-Toro, 520 F.3d 58, 62 (1st Cir. 2008), a court must responsibly review the record, especially the evidence upon which the statement of uncontested facts is based on, to adequately evaluate a motion for summary judgment. In this case, while engaging in said analysis, the line between Plaintiff's supported qualifications and denials can be classified as a "blurry" one, Natal Pérez, 291 F. Supp. 3d at 219. This required the Court to delve into Defendant's summary judgment exhibits, notably the parties' depositions. This independent examination aided in establishing a clearer timeline as to Reyes Caballero's alleged age discrimination claim, Oriental's inquiry into possible money laundering and the internal process for handling Plaintiff's employment termination. Attempting to balance "efficiency and access to justice" and to fill in these factual gaps, the Court will on occasion reference undisputed facts contained in the record, but not detailed in the statements of facts. Id. at 221. While bearing in mindthat at this stage the facts must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party," Feliciano de la Cruz v. El Conquistador Resort & Country Club, 218 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000), the Court deems as uncontested the following proposed facts denied or qualified by Plaintiff: 10, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 42, 53, 56, 64, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 79 and 80.
Generally, Plaintiff did not properly contest these facts because their propositions were not strictly limited to the issues raised by Defendant and, in other instances, a mere corroboration into the record supports Defendant's proposed fact. See Natal Pérez, 291 F. Supp. 3d at 219-220. As to those properly contested facts, the Court holds that they are neither "genuine" nor "material" to warrant a trial and thus do not limit the issuing of a summary judgment to dispose this case. On the other hand, Defendant did not properly qualify or deny Plaintiff's additional and separate facts. Hence, they are also deemed uncontested. (Docket No. 59). For convenience and readability, the Court will address these issues of facts in footnotes as they arise in the subsequent section.
Reyes Caballero was born in 1960 and was 56 years old when terminated from Oriental. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶ 1; 59 ¶ 1). He has worked in the banking industry for around thirty-five (35) years and in Oriental since 2012. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶¶ 2-5; 59 ¶¶ 2-5).
At Oriental, Plaintiff held the position of "Business Banker," which entailed being "responsible for the acquisition of new customers through the sale of commercial loans, commercial deposits, cash management services of POS and investment referral and the expansion of the relationships of these customers." (Docket No. 46-4). Similarly, a business banker has to "[i]mplement effective strategies to support the attraction and retention of profitable commercial customers" and "[c]onduct business within corporate policies & procedures." Id. According to the job description, a business banker must also maintain knowledge of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), 31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.,regulations and all other security and bank policies and procedures. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶¶ 6-7; 46-4; 59 ¶¶ 6-7). These include receiving trainings on the Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering (jointly, "BSA/AML Policy") and the guidelines promulgated by the Office of Foreign Asset Control, among others. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶ 8; 59 ¶ 8).
More generally, all employees must comply with Oriental's Employee Handbook which establishes that any breach of the banks rules of behavior or performance may be the subject of disciplinary measures, including suspension and even termination. (Docket No. 46-1 ¶¶ 10-11).1 Additionally, the Handbook specifies that "retaliating against the employee for exercising his rights under the law or policy of Oriental is strictly prohibited." Id. Plaintiff acknowledged having received this human resource document, alongside the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, that prohibits discrimination based on age. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶¶ 8, 12; 59 ¶¶ 8, 12).
Oriental's compliance with BSA/AML Policy serves to protect the financial institution from "being used as an unwitting conduit for the perpetration of financial crime, including money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial transactions." (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶ 16; 59 ¶ 16). To fulfill this overall goal, Oriental's BSA Department conducts work trainings and ensures that employees and officers understand the scope of this policy and possess the necessary tools to detect illicit and suspicious activities form their customers and prospects. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶ 17; 59 ¶ 17). Employees who directly manage clients or provide support to Oriental's business units, like Plaintiff, receive these trainings annually. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶ 23; 59 ¶ 23). As a result, Orientalrelies on all its employees to report to the BSA's officer any activities that are considered "suspicious in nature," which are listed, "without limitation," in its policy. (Docket Nos. 46-1 ¶¶ 19; 46-7).2 Similarly, as part of the BSA/AML training, all employees receive instructions on terms such as "willful...
To continue reading
Request your trial