Gonzalez-Pagan v. Veterans Admin. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 14-1795 (MEL) |
| Parties | HECTOR R. GONZALEZ-PAGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION CENTER, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
On October 30, 2014, Héctor R. González Pagan ("González"), his wife Johanna Alma Matos ("Matos"), and their minor child (collectively "Plaintiffs"), filed a complaint against the Veterans Administration Center, the Department of Veterans Affairs represented by its Secretary, Robert A. McDonald1, the United States, United States Attorney General Eric Holder, and United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico Emilia Rodríguez Vélez (collectively "Defendants"). ECF No. 1. This case stems out of González applying for, being given a letter of pre-offer employment regarding, and ultimately being denied a position with the Veterans Administration Clinic in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the constitutional right to due process, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"), the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the Uniform Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act ("USERRA"), Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"), and, through the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), articles 1802 and 1803 of thePuerto Rico Civil Code 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 5141 and 5142 ().
On August 5, 2015, the court issued a deadline of November 13, 2015, to file motions to dismiss. ECF No. 22. On April 4, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and lack of prosecution. ECF No. 30. In light of no good cause being shown for Defendants' failure to file the motion to dismiss until almost five months after the expiration of the deadline, the portion of the motion requesting dismissal for failure to prosecute was summarily denied. ECF No. 39. The court, however, issued a subsequent opinion dismissing all claims pursuant to the FTCA (as well as claims under articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code) and all claims under the ADA with prejudice. ECF No. 52.
On July 14, 2016, the parties attended a pretrial and settlement conference. ECF No. 53. At this conference Plaintiffs voluntarily desisted in pursuing their claims under §1983 and Title VII, and agreed to their dismissal with prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs also stipulated that González (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is the only remaining plaintiff in this lawsuit. Id. In light of these stipulations and clarifications, all Title VII claims, all §1983 claims, and all claims by Matos and the minor were dismissed with prejudice. Id. Plaintiff also clarified that the United States Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico were not intended to be parties to the suit. Id. Therefore, any claims against the same were dismissed with prejudice. Id. Thus, the only defendant that remained active was the Department of Veterans Affairs as represented by the agency head, Secretary Robert A. McDonald. Id. In summary, remaining after the pretrial conference were Plaintiff's claims against the Department of Veterans Affairs and its Secretary inhis official capacity, for alleged violations of the ADEA, USERRA, and the constitutional right to due process. Id.
On August 22, 2016, Defendants filed yet another motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 65. The court issued an opinion dismissing Plaintiff's due process claim with prejudice and his USERRA claim without prejudice. ECF No. 77.
A bench trial was held on Plaintiff's ADEA claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter "Defendant" or "VA") on December 18, 2017, and December 19, 2017. ECF Nos. 96; 97.2 Plaintiff and the Department of Veterans Affairs subsequently submitted post-trial briefs. ECF Nos. 104; 105. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the post-trial memoranda, and the entire record in this case, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Héctor R. González-Pagán was born in 1959, has a Bachelor of Arts in History, and he was in the Army from 1978 until he retired in 2014. In November 2010, he applied online for a Medical Support Assistant ("MSA") position at the Veterans Administration Clinic in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. Ex. X, ¶ 1. Plaintiff was fifty-one years old when he applied to this position. Trial, Dec. 18, at 10:25 AM. Iris Alemán-González ("Alemán"), former chief of recruitment and staffing section of human resources at the VA hospital in San Juan, Puerto Rico,3 clarified that Plaintiff applied for an MSA Cashier position. Trial, Dec. 19, at 9:34-9:35 AM, 10:01 AM; see Gov't Ex. A.4 On December 8, 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs sent Plaintiff a pre-offer employment letter including instructions for completing the hiring process. Ex. X, ¶ 2. This letter did not contain a start date and Plaintiff testified that he was never given a start date. Trial, Dec. 18, at 11:10 AM; Ex. II. Alemán testified that the pre-offer letter was not a final offer of employment for the Plaintiff. Trial, Dec. 19, at 9:39-9:41 AM; Ex. II.5 Furthermore, she testified that an individual is not an actual employee until they receive a final offer. Trial, Dec. 19, at 9:38 AM. As requested, Plaintiff successfully completed a security/background check, a medical screening, and fingerprinting. Ex. X, ¶ 3. However, even upon completing these requirements, a person who receives a pre-offer of employment will remain on pending status until there is approval for a final offer. Trial, Dec. 19, at 9:42 AM, 3:25-3:27 PM. Moreover, a final offer has a commencing date and cannot be canceled whereas a pre-offer can be canceled. Id. at 10:17-10:18 AM.
In January 2013, the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Congressional Representative of Puerto Rico acknowledged that Plaintiff had been selected for a position, but explained that he was not permitted to start in the MSA position:
[D]ue to the budget constraints on and around the end of December 2010, the Director of the VA Caribbean Healthcare System made a decision to place a hold on the appointments until a full assessment of the situation was addressed. At thatpoint, many candidates selected and in the same status as . . . [Plaintiff] were placed on hold until further notice. A few months later, and due to the budgetary situation, a decision was made by the Director to eliminate the positions that were previously placed on hold. Our Staffing HR specialists were informed about the decision and instructed to inform candidates who had received pre-offer letters.
Ex. X, ¶ 4. The testimony of Alemán corroborated this as she testified that around late November or early December 2010, she was told by the executive team that there was going to be a budget constraint for the VA, meaning less money would be received in the budget. Trial, Dec. 19, at 10:02 AM.
On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff received a response to his Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request concerning MSA positions filled by the Department of Veterans Affairs San Juan since 2010. Ex. X, ¶ 7. The response showed that certain MSA positions at the Caribbean HCS6 had been filled between December 2010 and December 2012. Id. The Veterans Affairs Caribbean Health System, in all its clinics, hired from outside the facility seventeen MSA positions between December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. Ex. VIII, at 1. "Out of the 17 hires: 12 were Veterans with preference, under Schedule A appointment (People with targeted disabilities), and non vets." Id. (emphasis in original).
Four MSA positions were filled at the Mayagüez VA facility in December 2010, January 2011, February 2011, and July 2012. Ex. X, ¶ 6; Ex. VIII, at 1. The four individuals that were hired were all younger than Plaintiff. Trial, Dec. 18, at 10:23-10:24 AM.7 One of these individuals was ten and a half years younger than Plaintiff, another was fourteen years younger, and anotherwas twenty-two years younger. Id. at 10:23 AM. Plaintiff, however, could not remember how much younger the fourth one was, but he was clear that the fourth individual was younger than him. Id. at 10:30 AM.
Alemán was asked at trial why four MSA positions were hired for Mayagüez during the same time frame that the Plaintiff's position was put on hold. Trial, Dec. 19, at 11:00 AM. She testified that this was because there are different types of MSAs. Id. at 11:01 AM.8 Some MSAs are for different sections and different positions. Id. For example, there is a difference in the responsibilities and duties of an MSA in a Patient Alignment Care Treatment ("PACT") position and an MSA not in a PACT position. Id. at 3:29 PM.9 A PACT position was part of an initiative nationwide, where the VA decided to make teams and the VA sent specifically budget funded personnel for those teams. Id. PACT positions were funded positions for the new program so they were approved to go ahead and recruit. Id. at 2:23-2:24 PM. The position that the Plaintiff was pre-offered was not a PACT position. Id. at 3:29 PM. Out of the four MSA positions hired for Mayagüez during the time frame that Plaintiff's position was put on hold, three of them were PACT positions. Id. at 2:23-2:24 PM, 3:29 PM. However, Alemán could not remember what type of MSA position the fourth one was. Id. at 3:32 PM.
The position that Plaintiff was selected for was put on hold around the end of December 2010 and eliminated a few months later. Ex. III; Ex. V; see id. at 3:32-3:33 PM. According to Alemán, in the case of MSA for travel, which was the position that Plaintiff was selected for, the same was eliminated not because of Plaintiff's age, but rather because the duties of the person who left that position was distributed among the MSAs who were already...
To continue reading
Request your trial