Rodriguez-Flores v. Bureau of Prisons

• Decision Date: 28 December 2022
• Docket Number: Civ. 19-1642 (SCC)
• Parties: ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ-FLORES, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ-FLORES, Plaintiff,
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.

Civ. No. 19-1642 (SCC)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

December 28, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

SILVIA CARRENO-COLL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Orlando Rodriguez-Flores, Alicia Aybar-Rosado, and the conjugal partnership between them sued the United States and several of its agencies and officers, alleging that they discriminated against Mr. Rodriguez-Flores based on his race, national origin, sex, age, medical condition, and status as a member of the military. There is one remaining plaintiff, defendant, and claim: Mr. Rodriguez-Flores, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), respectively. The government moves for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) Mr. Rodriguez-Flores failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and (2) he has no evidence that the BOP discriminated against him based on age when it assigned him to work long shifts, holidays, and weekends.

1

I. Summary Judgment Standard

The purpose of summary judgment is to “pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required.” Tobin v. Fed. Express Corp., 775 F.3d 448, 450 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir. 1992)). The movant must first “demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 u.s. 317, 323 (1986). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the lawsuit. Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt v. Ingersoll-Rand de P.R., Inc., 999 F.3d 37, 50 (1st Cir. 2021). And there is a genuine dispute over it when “the evidence, viewed in the light most flattering to the nonmovant, would permit a rational factfinder to resolve the issue in favor of either party.” Id. (quoting Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990)). After the movant has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to “produc[e] specific facts sufficient to deflect the swing of the summary judgment scythe.” Joseph v. Lincare, Inc., 989 F.3d 147, 157 (1st Cir. 2021). The nonmovant, in other words, must

2

show that a “trialworthy issue exists.” Mulvihill v. Top-Flite Golf Co., 335 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 2003). But where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof on an issue, the “movant need do no more than aver ‘an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.'” Mottolo v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 43 F.3d 723, 725 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 u.s. at 325). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Alston v. Town of Brookline, 997 F.3d 23, 35 (1st Cir. 2021). In the end, summary judgment is appropriate only when the record demonstrates that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the movant “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a)).

II. Undisputed Facts

Mr. Rodriguez-Flores is a registered nurse. GUF 1; RGUF 1.^[1]He worked as a nurse at Metropolitan Detention

3

Center Guaynabo from 2007 to 2017. GUF 1, 6; RGUF 1, 6. During that time, he was a member of the u.s. Army. GUF 2; RGUF 2. In 2015, he took extended sick leave. He returned to a light duty assignment in 2016 and then retired on medical disability in 2017. GUF 6; RGUF 6.

On July 17, 2015, he filed an appeal with the Merit systems Protection Board (MsPB). GUF 8; RGUF 8. This appeal was limited to alleged discrimination and retaliation under the uniformed services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. GUF 9; RGUF 9. He did not allege age discrimination. GUF 10; RGUF 10. The MsPB held a hearing and issued an initial decision on May 1, 2019. GUF 11-12; RGUF 11-12. It found that, to the extent he was treated differently by being forced to work more hours, he was treated differently because, unlike the civilian nurses, he was not part of the union. GUF 14; RGUF 14. He “is not included in the bargaining unit, nor covered under a collective bargaining agreement.” GUF 17; RGUF 17.

In 2013, he was forty-nine years old. GUF 21; RGUF 21. During the time when the BoP allegedly discriminated

4

against him, there were six nurses at MDC Guaynabo. All of them, except Mr. Rodriguez-Flores, were under forty. PAUF 24; see also Docket No. 70-1.

The government asks us to ignore these facts (that there were five other nurses who were all under the age of forty) because Mr. Rodriguez-Flores's self-serving affidavit, the only record support for them, should be stricken from the record. Docket No. 72, pgs. 2-4. To be sure, affidavits are insufficient to defeat summary judgment when they “merely reiterate allegations made in the complaint, without providing specific factual information made on the basis of personal knowledge.” Garmon v. AMTRAK, 844 F.3d 307, 315 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 53 (1st Cir. 2000)). But a “party's own affidavit, containing relevant information of which he has first-hand knowledge, may be self-serving, but it is nonetheless competent to support or defeat summary judgment.” Velazquez-Garcia v. Horizon Lines of P.R., Inc., 473 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Santiago-Ramos, 217 F.3d at 53). Because his affidavit sets forth...