Rosado-Mangual v. Xerox Corp.
| Decision Date | 27 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 15-3035 (PAD) |
| Parties | JOSÉ ROSADO-MANGUAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XEROX CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Plaintiffs, José Rosado Mangual, his wife and their legal conjugal partnership, sued Rosado's former employer, Xerox Corporation, alleging that Xerox terminated Rosado's employment without just cause 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. They claimed entitlement to Law 80's indemnity, damages for age discrimination and emotional distress, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees (Docket No. 1).
Xerox answered the complaint denying liability (Docket No. 7). Upon conclusion of discovery it moved for summary judgment in conformity with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pointing out that the record shows just cause for termination of Rosado's employment (Docket No. 44). Plaintiffs opposed the motion (Docket No. 54). Xerox replied (Docket No. 65) and plaintiffs surreplied (Docket No. 72). On March 30, 2018, the court granted Xerox's motion (Docket No. 89). Following are the grounds in support of the court's ruling.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A factual dispute is "genuine" if it could be resolved in favor of either party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). It is "material" if it potentially affects the outcome of the case in light of applicable law. Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004).
All reasonable factual inferences must be drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. See, Shafmaster v. U.S., 707 F.3d. 130, 135 (1st Cir. 2013)(so noting). To resist summary judgment, however, the nonmovant must do more than show some metaphysical doubt as to a material fact. See, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)(articulating proposition). Conclusory allegations, empty rhetoric, unsupported speculation, or evidence which, in the aggregate, is less than significantly probative, however, will not suffice to ward off a properly supported summary judgment motion. See, Nieves-Romero v. U.S., 715 F.3d 375, 378 (1st Cir. 2013)(applying principle). Based on these parameters, careful record review shows absence of genuine factual dispute as to the facts identified in the section that follows.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT1
Xerox sells document technology products, document solutions and services (Docket No. 44, p. 3). Rosado was employed with Xerox from 1985 to 2014. In December 1985, he began working for the Company as a Marketing Trainee. See, Docket No. 45, "Defendant's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment" ("SUMF") ¶ 1; Docket No. 55, "Plaintiffs' Opposing Statement of Material Facts in Support of their Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("OSMF") ¶ 1. In 1995, he was promoted to District Solutions Sales Manager, supervising approximately 20 employees. See, SUMF ¶¶ 24-25; OSMF ¶¶ 24-25. On May 30, 2002, he was removed from the managerial position and assigned to the position of Product Solution Sales Executive ("PSSE"), where he remained until his termination in March 2014. See, SUMF ¶¶ 36, 134; OSMF ¶ 36; Docket No. 45-28 at p. 1.
As explained in detail below, Xerox terminated Rosado's employment with just cause. He violated company policy in creating an environment of fear, distrust and antagonism, being demeaning towards women and threatening employees with loss of their jobs; using the corporate credit card for personal expenses; circumventing the Company's collection policy by arranging theprovision of supplies to a delinquent, non-paying customer; driving for approximately eight months on company business with an expired driver's license, a misdemeanor exposing Xerox to potential civil liability; and lying during the investigation regarding the driver's license.
Upon commencement of his employment with Xerox, Rosado acknowledged he had the obligation to read and understand the Company's policies applicable to his position and to seek advice from management if he had questions regarding them. See, SUMF ¶ 5.2 Rosado was also aware that violation of Xerox's policies could result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. See, SUMF ¶7.3
Xerox has a Code of Business Conduct which delineates the Company's core values and outlines its general expectations regarding employee behavior. See, SUMF ¶ 8.4 Xerox employees receive annual email reminders to complete the required training on the Code of Business Conduct, and to acknowledge completion of that training in Xerox's E-Learning system. See, SUMF ¶ 11.5The Code of Business Conduct training includes links to policies referenced in the training and informs employees that there are additional policies that may govern Xerox's forms of conducting business. See, SUMF ¶ 12.6 These policies are accessible through the Company's internal website. See, SUMF ¶ 10.7 Rosado completed trainings on the Code of Business Conduct and other policies mostly online from 2004 to 2006 and from 2009 through 2013, SUMF ¶ 17,8 through Xerox's Worldwide Learning Services, an electronic learning system. See, SUMF at ¶ 15.9
During his tenure as District Solutions Sales Manager, Rosado reported to different managers at different times: Rafael González, Jeffrey Hansen, Mark Cates, and Alberto Añeses. See, SUMF ¶ 26; OSMF ¶ 26. On June 16, 2000, Hansen, Rosado's manager at the time, sent him a memorandum informing Rosado that his leadership skills were being negatively perceived byother employees in the Puerto Rico office. See, SUMF ¶ 27.10 Hansen requested that Rosado "maintain a healthy work environment." Id.11 In late November of the same year, González met with Rosado to discuss negative feedback he had received about Rosado's behavior. See, SUMF ¶ 28.12 On December 7, 2000, Rosado sent González a memorandum acknowledging the conversation they had regarding Rosado's interpersonal skills and providing other managers' feedback about his behavior towards other employees. See, SUMF ¶ 29.13
On April 3, 2001, Mark Cates sent Rosado a memorandum informing him that employees had the right to use Xerox's Open Door Policy and that he expected Rosado to observe Xerox's anti-retaliation policy. See, SUMF ¶ 30.14 Sometime in 2002, several of Rosado's direct reports complained to Luz Barreto, Human Resources Assistant, about the way Rosado treated them. See, SUMF ¶ 31.15 Specifically, they complained that Rosado was disrespectful and undermined themin front of others. See, SUMF ¶31.16 The Company's Code of Conduct seeks to prevent harassment and bullying, violence, discrimination, coercion and discrimination of any kind (Docket No. 45-9, pp. 730, 740).17
Human Resources conducted an investigation into the employees' complaints. See, SUMF ¶ 33.18 As a result of the investigation, Xerox issued Rosado a warning letter for creating an environment of fear, distrust and antagonism, being demeaning towards women and threatening employees with loss of their jobs. See, SUMF ¶34.19 The letter stated that all company policieshad to be followed in order for Xerox to conduct its business effectively and fairly, and therefore policy violations were considered a serious matter. See, SUMF ¶ 39.20 Additionally, the letter warned that further policy violations could lead to more severe corrective or disciplinary action "up to and including termination." See, SUMF ¶ 38.21 As a result, Rosado was removed from the managerial position and reassigned to a Product Solutions Sales Executive ("PSSE") position, a non-supervisory role, effective June 1, 2002, and did not receive a merit increase. See, SUMF ¶¶ 36-37.22
As a PSSE, Rosado applied for an American Express Corporate Card, which Xerox approved on October 22, 2002. See, SUMF ¶¶ 40-41; OSMF ¶¶ 40-41.23 The American ExpressCorporate Card application's accompanying memorandum, both of which Rosado signed, stated that the corporate card was to be used only for expenditures associated with Xerox's business transactions. See, SUMF ¶ 42.24 Rosado was aware that abuse of the corporate card was a violation of Xerox policy and subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. See, SUMF ¶ 44.25
On February 6, 2012, Xerox's financial services organization contacted Barreto indicating that it appeared as if Rosado had used his corporate card for personal expenditures. See, SUMF ¶ 45; OSMF ¶ 45. Eric Pérez, General Manager, and Barreto conducted an internal policy investigation on the matter. See, SUMF ¶ 46; OSMF ¶ 46. They interviewed Rosado, who admitted having used his corporate card for personal expenses. See, SUMF ¶ 47.26 The investigation revealed that he had used his corporate card from October 2011 through January 2012 for personal expenditures amounting to approximately $12,000. See, SUMF ¶ 48.27
On February 21, 2012, Rosado received a written warning for violating Xerox's Global American Express Policy, as "using the AMEX card for personal use [was] in violation of thepolicy. See, SUMF ¶ 49; OSMF ¶ 49.28 The Written Warning reiterated that further policy violations could result in "more severe corrective or disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment with Xerox." See, SUMF ¶ 51; OSMF ¶ 51.29
Xerox's Collections...
To continue reading
Request your trial