Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 97-2782(HL).,Civ. 97-2782(HL). |
| Citation | 52 F.Supp.2d 269 |
| Parties | John Thomas CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. McALLISTER BROTHERS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez, Mendoza & Baco, San Juan, PR, Roberto SchmidtMonge, Hato Rey, PR, for John Thomas, plaintiff.
Jose Luis Suarez-Villafane, Jimenez, Graffam & Lausell, San Juan, PR, for McAllister Brothers, Inc., defendant.
Before the Court are a motion for summary judgment by Defendant McAllister Brothers, Inc. and a motion for partial summary judgment by Plaintiff John Thomas Cruz ("Thomas"). McAllister operates a fleet of tugboats in Puerto Rico. Thomas is a former employee. He brings this claim for monetary and injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act1 ("ADA") and the Fair Labor Standards Act2 ("FLSA"). Thomas also brings Puerto Rico law claims pursuant to the Court's supplemental jurisdiction.3
McAllister's motion seeks summary judgment dismissing the entire case; Thomas' motion is limited to his FLSA claim. When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, the court should consider each motion separately and draw inferences against each movant in turn. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Occidental Int'l, Inc., 140 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1998). The Court will first consider McAllister's motion. Accordingly, the Court initially reviews the record in the light most favorable to Thomas and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor. See LeBlanc v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 841 (1st Cir.1993). Thomas began working for McAllister in March 1995 as a port engineer.4 The exact nature of his duties in this position are at the crux of this dispute, and the Court discusses this issue more fully below. For now, it is sufficient to say that the job description states that a port engineer is responsible for maintaining McAllister's fleet in a seaworthy condition and that the position's duties include supervising engine maintenance personnel; supervising the operation of power plants and auxiliary equipment for the vessels; supervising the repair of vessels; approving requisitions for parts and supplies; administering the repair shop; and issuing work orders.5
In September 1996, Thomas was involved in a car accident unrelated to his work with McAllister. As a result of this accident he suffered injuries to his back, neck, and shoulders.6 Thomas subsequently brought suit in Puerto Rico's local court against the driver of the other vehicle.7 In his complaint in that suit he alleged that he lost his job at McAllister because he was unable to perform the work he had previously done.8 In the pretrial order for this local court case, Thomas modified this allegation to state that as a consequence of the accident he lost his job because McAllister did not want to provide accommodations for his health condition.9
Thomas' FLSA claim revolves around deductions that McAllister made to his accrued sick and vacation leave time. The first deduction was for the day of March 21, 1997. Eladio Rodríguez, Thomas' supervisor, claims that on that afternoon Thomas left work early and no one knew where he was.10 Thomas disputes this version and avers that when he left for the afternoon he advised both the company's secretary and dispatcher.11 It is undisputed that McAllister originally docked Thomas a half-day's pay for this absence.12 He complained, and in his next paycheck McAllister paid him for this docked amount. The company did, however, deduct a half a day from his vacation leave.13 McAllister made other partial day deductions from Thomas' leave banks for other of his absences in April 1997.
A key aspect of Thomas' ADA claim is his job performance on April 5, 1997. He claims that on that morning the tug Rosemary reported a problem with its winch; that the dispatcher called Thomas, and he went to the vessel to direct the repair; and that after it was repaired he went home.14 He further claims that in the afternoon of that same day, he received a second call; that this time a cable had been caught in the propeller of the tugboat Puerto Nuevo; and that he called a scuba diver and went to the pier where the tug was located.15 Rodríguez casts these events in a different light: in his depositions he stated that Thomas did not repair the Rosemary because he could not find a welder and that he negligently left the Puerto Nuevo unattended.16 Regardless of the exact manner in which Thomas handled these two situations, it is undisputed that Rodríguez was not satisfied with his performance.17 Rodríguez, who was not in Puerto Rico on this date, telephoned Thomas to discuss the way he had dealt with the two problems. Rodríguez was extremely angry and he told Thomas that he did not "need" him.18 During this phone conversation, Thomas informed Rodríguez that he had taken medication, although he did not specify what kind of medication.19 The medicine that Thomas had taken was Soma, which he took for pain caused by the automobile accident.20
The following Monday, April 7, 1997, Rodríguez met with Thomas to tell him that he was being demoted to assistant port engineer because he had performed his job negligently on April 5.21 Thomas told Rodríguez that before he could accept this new position, he needed to know what his duties would be because he was looking for a reasonable accommodation.22 The demotion involved a salary reduction, and Rodríguez told him to think about this reduction and talk to him later about it.23 Also, Rodríguez asked Thomas during the meeting if he could change a vessel's "power pack." Because changing a power pack requires physical exertion, Thomas mentioned that he would need a reasonable accommodation.24 Thomas informed Rodríguez that he needed a job which did not require physical force.25
The next day, April 8, Thomas reported to work at 6:00 a.m. He felt ill that day, and he left approximately an hour later. He did return later that morning because Rodríguez had asked him to be present for an obligatory conference.26 After the conference Rodríguez asked Thomas whether he had thought about what his salary should be as assistant port engineer. Thomas responded that he needed to know what the duties of the position entailed before he could discuss salary.27 Thomas left after the conference. He did not work the rest of that week, and he was on sick leave from April 9 through April 11.28
The following Monday, April 14, Thomas returned to work with a letter from Dr. Mercedes Stefani, his physiatrist. Her letter stated that Thomas had been unable to work from April 8 through April 11 because he had been diagnosed as having cervical radiculopathy, degenerative disc disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, severe cervical myositis, and tendinitis in his shoulders.29 On that same date Thomas also submitted a letter to his employer in which he stated that, pursuant to his doctor's recommendations, he requested a position which did not require "considerable physical exertion in heavy lifting or carrying; climbing up and down ladders on the ships tanks and drydocks or the repair of equipment with respect to hull and machinery."30 He attached a medical certificate from Dr. Stefani in which she repeated her diagnosis of Thomas and recommended that he not "perform activities requiring heavy lifting or carrying, continuous neck movement, elevation of arms shoulder level frequently [sic], frequent handling of objects or grasping."31
On April 16, Rodríguez decided that Thomas was unfit to perform his duties, and he ordered that he be placed on sick leave.32 Thomas reported to work on that day, but Rodríguez asked or told him to leave. Thomas refused to leave, and Rodríguez called the police. When two officers arrived, Rodríguez asked them to remove Thomas because he constituted a safety threat.33 The police determined that this was an employer — employee dispute and departed without removing Thomas from the premises. A few minutes after the police left, Thomas left of his own volition.34 Thereafter, Thomas did not work at McAllister. He was on leave until his accrued vacation and sick time ran out.35
While Thomas was on leave, the following communications between the parties took place:
1 Letter from Thomas to Rodríguez dated May 5, 1997. Thomas protested the fact that he had been placed on sick leave, requested a written notice confirming that this action had been taken, and requested medical leave once his sick leave expired.36
2 Letter from Rodríguez to Thomas dated May 15, 1997. Rodríguez stated that Thomas' medical certificate indicated that he was unable to perform the duties of assistant port engineer; that Thomas was not allowed to work for safety reasons until the company could evaluate the situation; and that he had been placed on medical leave. In response to Thomas' request for a position that did not require physical exertion, Rodríguez stated that the company needed additional information on his condition. Specifically, Rodríguez requested an evaluation from Dr. Stefani as to what functions of the assistant port engineer job Thomas could complete. He also asked Thomas to be evaluated by Dr. Orlando Fernández, an orthopedic surgeon. Rodríguez informed Thomas that once the company had this medical information, it would contact Thomas to discuss a possible reasonable accommodation.37
3 Letter from Thomas to Rodríguez dated May 16, 1997. He stated that he would report to Dr. Fernández for an evaluation and would submit his files from Dr. Stefani. He also protested being placed on sick leave, claimed that his demotion was unjustified, and asserted that he was physically able to work. He stated that the only accommodation he needed was that he not be required to do tasks which required physical effort and which were not necessary to his performance as a port engineer.38
4 Letter from Thomas to Rodríguez dated June 2,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Eastside Lumberyard and Supply Co.
...1203 (D.Kan.2000) (same); Walborn v. Erie County Care Facility, 150 F.3d 584, 588-89 (6th Cir.1998) (same); Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 269, 287 (D.Puerto Rico 1999) (same); Barker v. Int'l Paper Co., 993 F.Supp. 10, 16 (D.Me. 1998) (same); Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc......
-
Torres-Alman v. Verizon Wireless Puerto Rico, Inc.
...Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 264 (1st Cir.1999); Laurin v. Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52, 58 (1st Cir.1998); Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 269, 278-79 (D.P.R.1999). To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that h......
-
Velazquez Rivera v. Danzig
...to prosper in a Rehabilitation Act case, the plaintiff must establish that he or she is disabled. See Cruz v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 269, 279 (D.Puerto Rico 1999) (citing to Arnold v. United Parcel Service, 136 F.3d 854, 856-59 (1st Cir.1998)). Therefore, it is to establish......
-
Rivera Sanchez v. Autoridad De Energia Electrica
...Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 264 (1st Cir.1999); Laurin v. Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52, 58 (1st Cir.1998); Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 269, 278-79 (D.Puerto Rico 1999). 6. See also Katz, 87 F.3d at pg. 30; Jacques v. Clean-Up Group, Inc., 96 F.3d 506, 511 (1st Cir.1996). See......