Ruiz-Justiniano v. U.S. Postal Serv.

• Decision Date: 29 June 2018
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO.: 16-1526 (MEL)
• Parties: JOSE A. RUIZ-JUSTINIANO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

JOSE A. RUIZ-JUSTINIANO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL NO.: 16-1526 (MEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

June 29, 2018

OPINION AND ORDER

José A. Ruiz-Justiniano ("Plaintiff") filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2016, against Megan J. Brennan, in her official capacity as Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer of the United States Postal Service, the United States Postal Service (hereinafter "Postal Service" or "USPS"), and the United States of America (collectively "Defendants"). ECF No. 20. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"); 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981); the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. § 4311, et seq.; retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3); and the Federal Torts Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Pending before the court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment. ECF Nos. 26; 40. Defendants argue in their motion for summary judgment that Title VII and the ADEA are the exclusive and preemptive remedies for Plaintiff's discrimination claims and thus all other claims should be dismissed, that Plaintiff's claims are restricted to those that he argued at the agency level, and that Plaintiff fails to establish the necessary facts under each statute to survive this motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 28. In his cross motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff denies the arguments made within Defendants' motion for summary judgment and asks the court to enter partial summary judgment for a prima facie case for his claims under the EPA, ADEA, USERRA, Title VII, and retaliation under both Title VII and the FLSA. ECF Nos. 40; 41. Defendants subsequently filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition and also a response to Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 52; 53. Plaintiff then filed a combined "sur-reply" to Defendants' reply in opposition, and a reply to Defendants' opposition to the cross motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 61.

I. FRCP 12(b)(6) - FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

While Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, this motion contains multiple arguments imbedded that should have been framed within a motion to dismiss. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's exclusive remedies for discrimination in this case are under Title VII and the ADEA, thus all other claims should be dismissed. ECF No. 28, at 12. Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's FTCA claim is preempted by various statutes. Id. at 15-16. Because the standards of review for a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment are different, each argument will be evaluated under the appropriate standard.

A. Standard of Review

In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must allege 'a plausible entitlement to relief.'" Rodríguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559 (2007)). "Plausible, of course, means something more than merely possible, and gauging a pleaded situation's plausibility is a 'context-specific' job that compels us 'to draw on' our 'judicial experience and common sense.'"Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Committee, 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).

This requires a two-pronged approach. Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). "First, the court must sift through the averments in the complaint, separating conclusory legal allegations (which may be disregarded) from allegations of fact (which must be credited)." Rodríguez-Reyes v. Molina-Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Morales-Cruz v. Univ. of P.R., 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 2012)). Second, the court will "take the complaint's well-pled (i.e., non-conclusory, non-speculative) facts as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor, and see if they plausibly narrate a claim for relief." Schatz, 669 F.3d at 55 (citing Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12). In addition to the complaint, the court can consider "(a) 'implications from documents' attached to or fairly 'incorporated into the complaint,' (b) 'facts' susceptible to 'judicial notice,' and (c) 'concessions' in plaintiff's 'response to the motion to dismiss.'" Id. (quoting Arturet-Vélez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 429 F.3d 10, 13 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005)). "We appropriately draw on our 'judicial experience and common sense' in evaluating a complaint, but we may not disregard factual allegations 'even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.'" Manning v. Boston Medical Center Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

B. Sex Discrimination Claims under Sections 1981 and 1983

Plaintiff has brought forth three statutes in his amended complaint in which he seeks relief for sex discrimination: Title VII, Section 1983, and Section 1981. ECF No. 20, at 11. The First Circuit has stated that in the federal employment context "[t]he Supreme Court has indicated that where the gravamen of the claim is Title VII discrimination, the only remedy available is underTitle VII." Rivera-Rosario v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 151 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir. 1998) (citing Brown, 425 U.S. 820). Here, Plaintiff is restricted to his Title VII claim as he is a federal employee under Title VII because he works for the United States Postal Service. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. "Title VII provides an exclusive remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment and that, therefore, a plaintiff cannot bring a section 1983 claim which is based on the same facts as the Title VII claim." Rodríguez-López v. Velazco-González, Civ. No. 08-1212 (GAG), 2009 WL 1108804, at *3 (D.P.R. Apr. 23, 2009); see also Castro v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 252, 259 (D.P.R. 1984) (dismissing plaintiffs' section 1983 claim because "[s]ection 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, is the exclusive judicial remedy available to a federal employee complaining about job-related discrimination . . . . Therefore, plaintiffs, as federal employees covered by Title VII, may not sue under any other federal statute." (citations omitted)), aff'd, 775 F.2d 399 (1st Cir. 1985).

For the same reasoning, "to the extent that Plaintiff proffers employment discrimination claims premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1981, such causes of action are dismissed." Ríos v. Rumsfeld, 323 F. Supp. 2d 267, 272 (D.P.R. 2004); see also Jefferson v. Gates, Civ. No. CA 09-537 ML, 2010 WL 2927529, at *13 (D.R.I. July 2, 2010) (finding "that Plaintiff's claim under § 1981 is barred" since Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, "provides the exclusive judicial remedy for discrimination claims in federal employment."), report and recommendation adopted, No. CA 09-537 ML, 2010 WL 2927528 (D.R.I. July 22, 2010). Here, Plaintiff's Title VII, section 1983, and section 1981 claims are based on the same facts for alleged discrimination based on sex; therefore, Plaintiff's exclusive judicial remedy is through Title VII. Thus, Plaintiff's section 1983 and section 1981 sex discrimination claims are dismissed with prejudice.

C. FTCA Claim

Plaintiff has alleged in his amended complaint a claim under the FTCA in that "Galindo, Calserrada, Delgado and O'Keefe" engaged in wrongful acts "on behalf of the Postal Service and of the United States of America, and while acting within the scope of their office or employment, inflicted personal and emotional injuries on Plaintiff." ECF No. 20, ¶ 83. Plaintiff's amended complaint does not make it clear on what tort or actions Plaintiff is relying on for his FTCA claim. However, Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition states that it is a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF No. 41, at 24. Defendants cite to various cases and statutes and argue that "[t]he remedial scheme . . . thus preempts a postal employee's tort- based claims under the FTCA." ECF No. 28, at 16. It is unclear whether Defendants contend that the Postal Reorganization Act ("PRA"), the Civil Service Reform Act ("CSRA"), Title VII, or a combination of all three make up the remedial scheme that preempts Plaintiff's FTCA claim. Nonetheless, the cases that Defendants cite to provide precedent indicating that Plaintiff's claim for relief under the FTCA is barred by the CSRA.

"Federal-sector employment claims typically take one of two paths." González v. Vélez, 864 F.3d 45, 51 (1st Cir. 2017). The first path is under the CSRA, "which constitutes 'a comprehensive system for reviewing personnel action[s] taken against federal employees.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 455 (1988)). The second path is under certain claims that "are excluded from the CSRA's monopoly over federal-sector employment actions." Id. "In particular, the statute 'shall not be construed to extinguish or lessen' rights or remedies available under certain antidiscrimination statutes." Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302(d)).

"Federal employees alleging employment-related torts subject to the CSRA may not bring actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act." Soto v. Runyon, 13 F. Supp. 2d 215, 224 (D.P.R.1998) (citation omitted); Martin v. Runyon, 14 F. Supp. 2d 174, 177 (D.P.R. 1998) (dismissing a USPS employee's FTCA claim because "employment controversies within the Postal Service are generally governed by the Postal Reorganization Act ("PRA") . . . . The PRA incorporates Chapter 75 of the Civil Service Reform Act . . . . The remedial scheme thus created preempts a postal employee's tort-based claims under the...