Hoyos v. Telecorp Communications, Inc., CIV.04-2313 (JP).
| Decision Date | 20 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.04-2313 (JP).,CIV.04-2313 (JP). |
| Citation | 405 F.Supp.2d 199 |
| Parties | Omar HOYOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TELECORP COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Anibal Lugo-Miranda, Anibal Lugo Miranda Law Offices, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.
Raquel Fas-Bravo, Luis F. Antonetti-Zequeira, Goldman Antonetti & Cordova, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Before the Court is defendants' "Motion for Summary Judgment" (No. 55), and the plaintiffs' opposition thereto.
The plaintiffs in this case are Omar Hoyos Aliff ("Hoyos") and his wife Cecilia Mejía Jiménez. The defendants are Telecorp Communications, Inc., AT & T Wireless, and Suncom Wireless Puerto Rico Operating Company LLC. Plaintiff Hoyos is a former employee of the defendants, and the plaintiffs allege that the defendants unlawfully terminated Hoyos' employment because of his gender and failed to pay benefits required under ERISA. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants' conduct violated Law 80 of May 30, 1976, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 185; Law 100 of June 30, 1959, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 146; Law 115 of December 20, 1991, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 194a; ERISA; and Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Constitution, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 § 5141.1
The defendants now move for summary judgment of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court hereby GRANTS the defendants' motion.
After thoroughly evaluating the parties' stipulations in the record, the defendants' statement of uncontested facts and supporting evidence, and the plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court determined that the following material facts are not in genuine issue or dispute:
1. Plaintiff Omar Hoyos is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
2. Plaintiff Cecilia Mejías Jiménez is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
3. Defendants Telecorp Communications Inc. and AT & T Wireless are foreign corporations doing business in Puerto Rico dedicated to wireless communication services.
4. Defendant New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal offices located in Redmond, in the State of Washington, and Atlanta, in the State of Georgia.
5. Defendant New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. is authorized to do business in Puerto Rico.
6. All of the above corporations must comply with federal and state laws, regulations and guidelines concerning employment laws.
7. Said federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines are applicable also to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
8. Hoyos was an employee of the defendant from March 22, 1999 to October 11, 2003.
9. At all times relevant to the complaint, the defendants had a detailed anti-harassment and discrimination policy that was part of the Employee Handbook called the Colleague Guidebook.
10. Hoyos received a copy of AT & T's Employee Handbook on November 15, 2002.
11. Hoyos never complained of any discrimination while employed with the defendant.
12. Hoyos testified at his deposition that "weeks after I was fired, that's when I put together all the pieces and I saw it clear, that I was fired because of discrimination by sex."
13. On or about January 1, 2003, Hoyos was promoted to Director of the entire Sales Organization.
14. Telecorp Communications, Inc. was acquired by AT & T in May of 2001.
15. Thereafter, plaintiff Hoyos was employed by AT & T.
16. During his almost five years of service and employment, Hoyos received various merit increases, bonuses, prizes, recognitions, and his evaluations were excellent.
17. Every year he received salary increases, bonuses, and prizes in recognition of his performance.
18. Hoyos' annual base salary at the time of his termination of employment was $92,000.00.
19. On April 4, 2003, Hoyos attended a business meeting at the Intercontinental Hotel in Isla Verde.
20. During the meeting, Hoyos invited several employees of the company, among them Ms. Nancy Alomar ("Alomar"), to go to the El San Juan Hotel for drinks.
21. Alomar accepted Hoyos' invitation and accompanied him to the El San Juan Hotel.
22. They walked together to the front of the parking lot to Hoyos' car to leave some mementos given at the meeting.
23. After leaving the mementos in Hoyos' car, they went to the El San Juan Hotel.
24. Hoyos had a beer and Alomar had a glass of wine.
25. Hoyos decided it was time to go when it was close to midnight.
26. Hoyos offered Alomar to walk her to her car, because her car was in the back of the parking lot.
27. After they reached her car, Alomar gave Hoyos a ride back to his car.
28. On April 8, 2003, Alomar filed an internal company complaint alleging that Hoyos had sexually harassed her.
29. She alleged that Hoyos grabbed her by the shoulders and tried to kiss her.
30. Hoyos emphatically denied Alomar's charges.
31. Hoyos admitted he gave Alomar a good night kiss on the cheek.
32. The company investigated Alomar's charges and could not conclude that Hoyos had violated the Company's Sexual Harassment Policy.
33. Hoyos was reminded to maintain the complaint and the information related to its investigation confidential in order to protect the privacy and reputation of all the parties involved.
34. In May 2003, the company restructured the corporate sales channel and Alomar started to report directly to Mr. Louis Cruzado, the newly hired Corporate Sales Manager.
35. In July 2003, during a CPA Convention, the defendant had a marketing "booth" to promote its products.
36. Raúl Burgos, the Vice President and General Manager and Hoyos' then direct supervisor, and Jaime Pontón, the Human Resources Manager, instructed Hoyos to abstain from participating in the booth, because Alomar would be present, and that he could participate in the recreational activities, such as golf.
37. The company paid for Hoyos' stay in the hotel, but Burgos and Pontón instructed him to not participate in the exhibition area.
38. During the month of August, Louis Cruzado resigned from his position as Corporate Sales Manager and, as a temporary measure pending the completion of the hiring process, Hoyos was instructed to funnel all business communications with Alomar through Pontón.
39. Hoyos objected emphatically but was told by Burgos that his other alternative was to resign.
40. On or about September 12, 2003, Burgos proposed and received approval to change the entire sales organizational structure to have three directors, one for each channel, instead of having one director with all the responsibility for the three sales channels (Omar Hoyos).
41. Hoyos was named Sales Director for the Alternative Channels and New Products.
42. Hoyos' compensation and benefits package was not affected by the restructure.
43. Alomar began reporting to or through Mr. Pontón.
44. On October 2nd through 4th, 2003, the company attended the SME Convention at the Westin Río Mar.
45. On October 2, 2003, Hoyos visited the Company booth at the SME Convention on the day Ms. Alomar was assigned to the booth.
46. On the afternoon of Friday, October 3, 2003, Hoyos visited the defendants' convention booth with several other co-employees upon finishing that day's marketing presentation.
47. Ms. Alomar was present, along with other sales representatives.
48. On October 3, 2003, Alomar delivered a letter by hand to Pontón.
49. In the letter, Alomar complained that the pattern of intimidation and hostile environment towards her from Hoyos was evidenced by his presence at the SME Convention on the day she was assigned to the booth, which was contrary to what had been agreed between her and the company.
50. In the letter, Alomar claimed that Hoyos showed up at the booth and stood next to her with the intent to exercise emotional pressure and to intimidate her in her vulnerable position.
51. In the letter, Alomar stated that the inaction of the company left her no other choice than "to seriously consider the alternative that experienced labor attorneys have been suggesting for some time."
52. On that Friday night, Jeanne Habib, corporate counsel for the defendant, telephoned Hoyos regarding his attendance that day at the company's booth.
53. Habib told Hoyos that he violated the agreement to not visit the company booth during the dates Alomar was assigned to the booth.
54. On October 11, 2003, Hoyos was terminated from his employment with the defendant.
55. Hoyos signed a Stock Option Agreement with Telecorp, containing a Covenant Not to Compete/Non-Solicitation/Limitation of Public Statement agreement, dated August 31, 1999.
56. The Stock Option Agreement points out that it was "Not intended to qualify as an incentive stock option agreement within the meaning of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
57. For the following three years, Hoyos signed several Stock Option Agreements with Telecorp, the last of which was signed on January 14, 2002.
58. The last two Stock Option Agreement contracts were subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Telecorp PCS, Inc.'s 2000 Employee Director and Consultant Stock Plan.
59. Employee participation in the Telecorp PCS, Inc.'s 2000 Employee Director and Consultant Stock Plan ("the Plan") is voluntary.
Summary judgment serves to assess the proof to determine if there is a genuine need for trial. Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir.1990). Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when "the record, including the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colon v. Colomer
...Lupu v. Wyndham El Conquistador Resort & Golden Door Spa, 524 F.3d 312, 313 (1st Cir. 2008). See generally Hoyos v. Telecorp Commcns, Inc., 405 F.Supp.2d 199, 207 (D.P.R.2005); Rivera Rodriguez v. Sears Roebuck De P.R., Inc., 367 F.Supp.2d 216, 230 (D.P.R.2005). The Court already found that......
-
Marrero v. Misey Rest., Inc.
...differ on their respective burden of proof allocations; Law 100 places a tougher burden on defendant. See Hoyos v. Telecorp. Commc'ns, Inc., 405 F.Supp.2d 199, 206-07 (D.P.R.2005) (discussing Law 100 burden shifting framework), aff'd, 488 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007); Mejias Miranda v. BBII Acqui......
-
Torres-Alman v. Verizon Wireless Puerto Rico, Inc.
...employer must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge was made for good cause." See Hoyos v. Telecorp Communications, 405 F.Supp.2d 199, 205-06 (D.P.R.2005). Law 80 contains a retaliation component insofar it provides that an employee's "collaboration or expressions ......
-
Salgado-Candelario v. Ericsson Caribbean, Inc., Civil No. 04-2351 (ADC).
...burden on defendants than does Title VII. See Medina v. Adecco, 561 F.Supp.2d 162 (D.P.R.2008) (citing Hoyos v. Telecorp. Commc'ns, Inc., 405 F.Supp.2d 199, 206-07 (D.P.R.2005), aff'd, 488 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. More specifically, "[u]nder Law 100, plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishi......