Rodriguez v. Exec. Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 14-1398 (PAD) |
| Citation | 180 F.Supp.3d 129 |
| Parties | Elaine Rodriguez, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Executive Airlines, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Manuel Duran-Rodriguez, Manuel Duran Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.
Juan C. Enjamio, Hunton & Williams, Miami, FL, Patricia M. Marvez-Valiente, James D. Noel III, McConnell Valdes, LLC, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Carolina Part of the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico against Executive Airlines, Inc. and others,1 alleging unjust dismissal under the Puerto Rico Unjust Discharge Act, Law No. 80 of May 30, 1976, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 185a et. seq. ; age discrimination in employment pursuant to Puerto Rico's general antidiscrimination statute, Law No. 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 146 et. seq. ; and entitlement to meal period compensation in conformity with the Puerto Rico Working Hours Act, Law No. 379 of May 15, 1948, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 246 et. seq. Defendants removed the action to this court based on diversity of citizenship in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
During discovery, plaintiffs unsuccessfully requested information on defendants' employees and openings outside of Puerto Rico. Before the court is their “Motion to Compel Discovery and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof” (Docket No. 43), which defendants opposed (Docket No. 47). Plaintiffs replied (Docket No. 51). For the reasons explained below, the motion to compel is DENIED.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), discovery may be obtained as to any non-privileged material relevant to any party's claim or defense that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs allege to have been dismissed from their employment without just cause and because of their age (Docket No. 31 at ¶¶ 62, 63). They claim the employer did not follow seniority, retaining and subsequently reemploying younger, less experienced personnel to perform the same and/or similar work to the one they performed at the time of their dismissal, and within their occupational classification. Id. at ¶ 63.
Defendants assert that Executive Airlines shut down flight operations, as a result of which plaintiffs were dismissed (Docket No. 47 at pp. 1-2). They state that plaintiffs were employed as Passenger Service Agents out of Luis Munoz Marin International Airport in Puerto Rico (“SJU”), and the airline no longer employs personnel at SJU in the occupational classification plaintiffs worked in. Id. To evaluate the discovery dispute, the court places it in the context of the relevant statutory provisions pursuant to which plaintiffs seek entitlement to compensation here: Law No. 80 and Law No. 100.2
Law No. 80 requires the employer to pay a statutory indemnity to employees hired for undefined term who are dismissed from their employment without just cause.3 Article 2 includes examples of just cause, including three that relate to full, temporary or partial closing of operations; reorganizations; and actual or anticipated reduction in production, sales or profit. See, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 §§ 185b(d), (e), (f). Article 3 provides that if an employer terminates employees for one of those three reasons, the employer must give preference to those employees within the same occupational classification who have greater company-wide seniority, that is, seniority with the employer counted from the last time that the employee the employee began to work for the employer in a continuous and uninterrupted manner. Id.§ 185c; see also, Guía Revisada para la Interpretación y Aplicación de la Ley Núm. 80 de 30 de mayo de 1976 , según enmendada (2014), prepared by the Department of Labor and Human Resources of Puerto Rico at pp. 52-56 (“Revised Guideline”).4
If the employer terminates a more senior employee and retains a less senior employee within the same occupational classification, the employer has acted without just cause unless there is a clear and conclusive difference in favor of the capacity or efficiency of the less senior employee retained, in which case the higher capacity/efficiency prevails. See, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 185c. Likewise, preference must be given to the employees discharged in the event that within six months following the dismissal, the employer hires a person in like or similar work to that which employees were doing at the time of their discharge within their occupational classification. Reinstatement must follow seniority, subject to the capacity/efficiency exception pointed to above. Id. In such cases, to avoid liability the employer must reinstate with preference the previously terminated employee unless the person hired or reinstated (1) has greater company seniority, or (2) is clear and conclusively more efficient or capable.
These preferential retention/recall rules must be followed to avoid liability even though the reason for the workforce reduction is otherwise considered just cause. In general, they must only be applied within the occupational classification at the adversely impacted site. So they are normally applied comparing only the employees at the office, factory, branch or facility affected by the workforce reduction. See, Pages–Cahue v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de España, 82 F.3d 533, 540 (1st Cir.1996) ().
At another level, when there is a regular and usual practice of transferring employees from one site to the other and the various sites operate in a relatively integrated manner in regard to personnel matters, the employer will need to compare the seniority, performance, and capacities of the employees in the affected occupational classifications working at the various sites that operate in such an integrated manner. See, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 185c(b). In those instances, failure to comply with the preferential treatment rules deprives the employer of just cause for the dismissal. Ruy Delgado Zayas, Apuntes para el Estudio de la Legislación Protectora del Trabajo en el Derecho Laboral Puertorriqueño , 155 (2007).
Finally, preferential treatment obligations carry over to certain asset-transfer transactions. Article 6 imposes them upon the assets acquirer, provided it operates those assets as an ongoing business. See, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 185f.5 Should the acquirer opt not to continue with the services of some of the employees and hence does not become their new employer, it must choose the employees to be hired applying the preferential treatment framework laid out in Article 3. Revised Guideline at p. 63.
Law No. 100 prohibits the employer from discriminating against employees and applicants for employment because of their age, sex, race and other protected characteristics. A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination under this statute by demonstrating that (1) she suffered an adverse employment action, (2) the adverse action lacked just cause; and (3) there exists some basic fact substantiating the type of discrimination alleged to have occurred.
Salva v. Eagle Global Logistics, 2006 WL 2685109,*3 (D.P.R. September 18, 2006) ; Morales v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 237 F.Supp.2d 147, 152 (D.P.R.2002).
If the prima facie showing is made, a statutory presumption of liability is triggered, shifting to the employer the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the action was not motivated by discrimination. For these purposes, the term “just cause” is construed by reference to the meaning given to the term under Law No. 80. Varela–Teron v. Banco Santander de Puerto Rico, 257 F.Supp.2d 454, 464 (D.P.R.2003) ; Belk v. Martínez, 146 D.P.R. 215, 230 (1998).
With this background, plaintiffs request an order compelling defendants to produce:
Plaintiffs' request must be measured against the allegations setting forth their claim. In essence, they allege to have been dismissed on March 31, 2013 from their employment and that their discharge was unjust and discriminatory because the employer dismissed them in violation of statutory seniority rules, and retained and hired younger, less experienced personnel thereafter to do the job plaintiffs had done within the same occupational classification (Docket No. 31 at ¶¶ 62-64). The court reads plaintiffs' claim as one of unjust discharge linked to discrimination, in the sense that the employer acted without just cause under Law No. 80 because it violated the statute's preferential retention/recall provisions, and for that reason, should be presumed to have discriminated against plaintiffs because of their age under Law No. 100 (Docket No. 31 at ¶ 94).
Plaintiffs identify Executive Airlines as their “direct employer.” Id. at ¶ 28. Moreover, they assert that Executive Airlines operates establishments at SJU in Puerto Rico. Id. There is no allegation that Executive Airlines maintains establishments or work sites outside of Puerto Rico. Therefore, Executive Airlines is not required to produce information on employees or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polanco v. UPS Freight Servs., Inc.
...some basic fact substantiating the type of discrimination alleged to have occurred. See , Rodríguez v. Executive Airlines , 180 F.Supp.3d 129, 132-33, 2016 WL 4640362, *3 (D.P.R. March 31, 2016) (setting forth elements of prima facie case).66 The prima facie case creates a rebuttable presum......
- Bos. Taxi Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Bos.
-
Rivera-Cruz v. Hewitt Assocs. Caribe, Inc.
...just cause; and (3) there exists some basic fact substantiating the type of discrimination alleged. See, Rodríguez v. Executive Airlines, Inc., 180 F.Supp.3d 129, 132-133 (D.P.R. 2016)(setting forth elements of prima facie case under Law 100); Varela Teron v. Banco Santander de Puerto Rico,......
-
Rodriguez-Cardi v. MMM Holdings, Inc.
...burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the reason proffered was a pretext concealing unlawful discrimination of the type alleged. Rodríguez-Cuervos v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 181 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 1999). By extension, plaintiff's burden of producing evidence to rebut the employ......