Morales Pabon v. Morovis Community Health Center

• Decision Date: 17 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.02-2520(SEC).,CIV.02-2520(SEC).
• Citation: 310 F.Supp.2d 411
• Parties: Samuel A. MORALES PABON Plaintiff v. MOROVIS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, Inc., et al. Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

310 F.Supp.2d 411

Samuel A. MORALES PABON Plaintiff v. MOROVIS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, Inc., et al. Defendants

No. CIV.02-2520(SEC).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

March 17, 2004.

Maria J. Marchand-Sánchez, Esq., Ferraiuoli-Torres & Marchand, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.

Enrique Vélez-Rodríguez, Esq., Victor M. Rivera-Torres, Esq., San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

CASELLAS, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendants Morovis Community Health Center, Inc. (MCHC), José C. Román de Jesús, Manuel Díaz Collazo and their respective conjugal partnerships' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Docket # 6). Plaintiff has opposed said request (Docket # 12) and Defendants have replied (Dockets 16 & 18). After carefully examining the parties arguments and the applicable law, Defendants' motion will be GRANTED. However, the Court notes that for the reasons set herein the above captioned claim is being dismissed on grounds that were not raised in Defendants' motion.

Background

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint alleging violations under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and invoking this Court's supplemental jurisdiction for relief pursuant Puerto Rico Law 80, 29 L.P.R.A. § 185a et seq., Law 44, 1 L.P.R.A. § 501 et seq., and Law 115, 29 L.P.R.A § 194 et seq.

Plaintiff Samuel Morales Pabón suffers from Type 2 Diabetes or non-insulin dependent diabetes. He alleges that, because of his condition, Defendants first demoted him from his position as administrator of MCHC, reduced his work day from 8 working hours to 6 1/2 hours, made him punch an attendance card, deprived him of the benefit of having an assigned parking space and a secretary, moved him into a small office with no windows and insufficient air conditioning, made rude remarks about his health condition and eventually terminated him from his employment. As result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff allegedly suffered anxiety and depression.

Defendants have moved for the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims on several grounds. First, all Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed on the basis of res judicata or the judicial and/or collateral estoppel doctrines since Plaintiff has allegedly already litigated the same facts and issues in a previous action filed before the Commonwealth's First Instance Court, Arecibo part. In addition, Co-defendants Román de Jesús and Díaz Collazo argue that the definition of "employer" under the ADA and Law 115 does not apply to them and therefore, they cannot be held liable under said statutes. Finally, all Defendants contend that Law 80 is inapplicable and barred by claim preclusion since: 1) Law 80 contemplates relief for employees who work for an undetermined period of time and, in the instant case Plaintiff was under a two year contract and, 2) the Commonwealth's courts already held that Plaintiff and Defendant MCHC had entered into a two year work contract.

On the other hand, Plaintiff argues that his claims are not barred by either res judicata or estoppel doctrines since the complaint filed before the Commonwealth court was filed exclusively against MCHC and only contemplated a cause of action for violation of article 5(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Plaintiff also contends that the rights and duties in the case before the Commonwealth's court are totally different from the ones invoked in the instant case. Additionally, he argues that he expressly stated in his claim that he reserved the right to file any further claims before any other local or federal forum. Finally, regarding Defendants Román de Jesús and Díaz Collazo, Plaintiff does not contest that the ADA is inapplicable to them. However, Plaintiff argues that under Law 115's definition of "employer," which includes the term "employer's agent," Defendants Román and Díaz must be held liable since said individuals must be considered agents of MCHC since, at the time of the alleged incidents, they acted as President of the Board of Directors and Executive Director of MCHC respectively.

Standard of Review

In assessing whether dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate, "the trial court, must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiff's favor, and determine whether the complaint, so read, limns facts sufficient to justify recovery on any cognizable theory." LaChapelle v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 142 F.3d 507, 508 (1st Cir.1998) (citations omitted). "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), quoted in Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 1676, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999). See also Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir.1990) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is warranted "only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory").

But "[a]lthough this standard is diaphanous, it is not a virtual mirage." Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.1997) citing Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must set forth `factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.' "Id. In judging the sufficiency of a complaint, courts must "differentiate between well-pleaded facts, on the one hand, and `bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocution, and the like,' on the other hand; the former must be credited, but the latter can safely be ignored." LaChapelle, 142 F.3d at 508 (quoting Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996)). See also Rogan v. Menino, 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir.1999). Courts "will not accept a complainant's unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law." Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir.1993).

Applicable Law and Analysis

The American with Disabilities Act of 1991(ADA)¹ prohibits, inter alia, certain types of discrimination in the workplace against an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. Under the Act, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing each element of his or her claim for disability discrimination. See Cook v. State of Rhode Island, 10 F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir.1993). Once the plaintiff has done this, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce evidence showing that his or her actions were based on nondiscriminatory reasons. See McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). If the defendant produces such evidence, then the plaintiff must show that the sole reason for defendant's adverse employment decision was discrimination. Id. The specifications of the prima facie proof vary depending on the nature of the discrimination claim. See id. at 802 n. 13. In general, however, to state a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the plaintiff must show (1) that he has a disability within the meaning of the Act; (2) that, with or without reasonable accommodations, he can perform the essential functions for the position he holds; and (3) that he was discriminated against because of her disability. Lopez Hernandez v. Municipality of San Juan, 206 F.Supp.2d 243 (D.Puerto Rico 2002); Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.1997); Pritchard v. Southern Co. Services, 92 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir.1996) amended on reh'g, 102 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir.1996). In a disability discrimination case, therefore, the plaintiff must establish the crucial element that he/she is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See Cruz v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 269, 279 (D.P.R.1999) citing Arnold v. United Parcel Service, 136 F.3d 854, 856-59 (1st Cir.1998).

In general, the term "disability" as it is used in the statute refers to a condition that has "substantially limited" a "major life activity." See, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(i); Tardie v. Rehabilitation Hospital, 168 F.3d 538 (1st Cir.1999). An individual may be considered disabled under the ADA when he/she has: "(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) is regarded as having such impairment." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Although the Act does not define "major life activities," the Court may rely on the EEOC Regulations, which define the term as "`functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.'" Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994) quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).

The concept "substantially limits" refers to the extent to which an impairment interferes with a major life activity. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). Therefore, not only must the impairment affect a major life activity, but it must also substantially limit it. In particular, being substantially limited refers to being "(i) unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform that same major life activity." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). In addition, the following factors are considered to determine whether or not a major life activity is substantially limited: the nature and severity of the impairment, the length of time which the impairment is expected to continue, and whether or not...