Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharmaceutical LLC

• Decision Date: 30 November 2006
• Docket Number: Civil No. 01-1757 (RLA).
• Citation: 463 F.Supp.2d 163
• Parties: Delia RUIZ RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER PHARMACEUTICAL LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

463 F.Supp.2d 163

Delia RUIZ RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER PHARMACEUTICAL LLC, Defendant.

Civil No. 01-1757 (RLA).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

November 30, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Alberto J. Torrado-Delgado, Esq., Hatillo, PR, Wilma E. Reveron-Collazo, Esq., San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Juan C. Perez-Otero, Esq., Pedro J. Manzano-Yates, Esq., Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

ORDER IN THE MATTER OF PLAINTIFF'S DISABILITY CLAIMS

ACOSTA, District Judge.

Plaintiff instituted these proceedings alleging discrimination based on her disability as well as her sex. Only the claims asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")¹ and Law No. 44 of July 2, 1985, as amended, ("Law 44")² remain pending³ which defendant has moved to dismiss by way of summary judgment. The court having reviewed the arguments presented by the parties as well as the documents in the court's record, FINDS as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

According to plaintiff, defendant refused to provide her with the necessary accommodation at work and subsequently terminated her from employment due to her disability. In the alternative, plaintiff argues that she was terminated "because of her perceived disability.⁴ Defendant, on the other hand, contends that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of ADA nor was she perceived as disabled.

II. THE FACTS

The following uncontested relevant facts appear from the evidence submitted in this case:

1. Plaintiff commenced working with the defendant on a temporary basis as a packaging operator in defendant's Bottling Department at the end of 1997.

2. In November 1998, plaintiff became a regular employee continuing in the same position. On June 1, 1999, plaintiff submitted a medical certificate from her gynecologist, Dr. Gonzalez Camacho, indicating that plaintiff was 8 weeks pregnant and recommending that she avoid walking long distances.

3. No adjustments to her work demands were provided in response thereto.

4. On August 14, 1999, plaintiff tendered another medical certificate from Dr. Gonzalez Camacho informing that plaintiff was now 18 weeks pregnant and was suffering from edema in her legs and feeling numbness in her extremities. He recommended that she should only work day shifts and in a seated position. On August 16, 1999, Dr. Gonzalez Camacho specified that this recommendation should extend until January 3, 2000.

5. The request for a seated accommodation was prompted by plaintiff's herniated disc.

6. No accommodation was provided at this time. Rather, Dr. Felix, Pfizer's in-house physician, authorized plaintiff a one-week leave of absence from August 16, 1999, until August 22, 1999.

7. On August 23, 1999, plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Felix, who allowed her to return to her regular work without restrictions "pending coordination to work sitting down."

8. One week later, on August 30, 1999, plaintiff submitted a medical certificate signed by Dr. Oscar Ramos, a physiatrist. Dr. Ramos indicated that he had evaluated plaintiff on that day due to a left lumbo-sacral radiculopathy probably due to a herniated disc and that she would start medical treatment. The physician advised that plaintiff should be excused from work from August 30, 1999, to November 1, 1999.

9. Accordingly, plaintiff was authorized medical leave under the temporary non-occupational disability leave (SINOD) for these conditions from September 1, 1999, to November 1, 1999.

10. On November 2, 1999, plaintiff was again authorized a SINOD leave through January 1, 2000, for her back condition.

11. Plaintiff gave birth to her second child on December 31, 1999, and was authorized an eight-week maternity leave through February 24, 2000.

12. On February 25, 2000, the day plaintiff was due to return to work, she submitted a medical certificate signed by Dr. Ramos indicating that plaintiff was being treated for left Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Lumbo Sacral Disc Herniation. The physician indicated that although plaintiff was fit to return to work there were some restrictions that should be implemented at her work. These restrictions were:

— Avoid repetitive motions of hands.

— Avoid hand-over-shoulders position.

— Limit lifting-pushing-holding-bending.

— Do not lift over 26 lbs.

13. On February 25, 2000, plaintiff also submitted a certificate from Dr. Norberto Pellot Moran who diagnosed her with a major depression caused by the herniated disc. Accordingly, on that day plaintiff was granted SINOD benefits through March 25, 2000.

14. Plaintiff returned to work on March 27, 2000, whereupon she was evaluated by Dr. Felix to ensure she was fit to return to work. At that time plaintiff insisted on defendant implementing the restrictions specified by her physiatrist. However, Dr. Felix indicated that there was no opportunity for her to remain working at the plant with these limitations. Dr. Felix telephoned Dr. Ramos to evaluate plaintiff and subsequently discuss her therapeutic options.

15. Dr. Felix prepared a consultation form for Dr. Ramos for evaluation and recommendations regarding plaintiff's treatment options and rehabilitation to perform her tasks at work.

16. Plaintiff was sent home until further notice and until receiving her physiatrist's opinion.

17. On March 30, 2000, plaintiff reported back to work. She was seen by Dr. Felix for her a for duty evaluation at which time she provided him the consultation report from Dr. Ramos which, in pertinent part, reads:

Diagnosis

Left Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Both Wrists Tendinitis

L5S1 Discs Herniation

These are progressive diseases and may deteriorate her condition. She uses writs splinters at night and gets anti-inflammatory and muscle relaxants, and needs to protect the affected areas from damage.

Actually she is not a surgical candidate for CTS or HNP.

She should have some restrictions at her work area, so she can do her job with minimal deterioration of her condition. These restrictions should last at least six months, but may be longer.

— Avoid repetitive motions of hands

— Avoid hands-over-the shoulders position

— Do not lift over 25 lbs.

— Limit lifting-carrying-pushing-pulling-holding-bending.

18. Dr. Felix concluded that, "[i]n view of this [sic] recommendations and after conversation with [plaintiff's] work area supervisor where she can not perform the essential tasks of her job and needs her hands I do not recommend a RTW [return to work] to prevent further aggravation or lesion. Case discussed [with] HR [Human Resources] for plan of action."

19. Frances Guzman, Pfizer's Assistant Personnel Manager, advised plaintiff that with the conditions imposed by her physicians she had no chance of working either at Pfizer or at any other pharmaceutical company in the industry.

20. Plaintiff did not return to work.

21. On December 22, 2000 Pfizer sent plaintiff a letter requesting her to report to work on December 28, 2000. Plaintiff did not appear nor did she excuse her absence.

22. On January 16, 2001 plaintiff was given an ultimatum. Either she reported to work by January 22, 2001 or she would be terminated.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Rule 56(c) Fed. R. Civ. P., which sets forth the standard for ruling on summary judgment motions, in pertinent part provides that they shall be granted "if 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 a judgment as a matter of law." Sands v. Ridefilm Corp., 212 F.3d 657, 660-61 (1st Cir.2000); Barreto-Rivera v. Medina-Vargas, 168 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 1999). The party seeking summary judgment must first demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in the record. DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir.1997). A genuine issue exists if there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual disputes to require a trial. Morris v. Gov't Dev. Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746, 748 (1st Cir. 1994); LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 841 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1018, 114 S.Ct. 1398, 128 L.Ed.2d 72 (1994). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of a lawsuit under the governing law. Morrissey v. Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank, 54 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 1995).

"In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.'" Poulis-Minott v. Smith, 388 F.3d 354, 361 (1st Cir.2004) (citing Barbour v. Dynamics Research Corp., 63 F.3d 32, 36 (1st Cir.1995)).

Credibility issues fall outside the scope of summary judgment. "`Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.'" Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). See also, Dominguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424, 432 (1st Cir.2000) ("court should not engage in credibility assessments."); Simas v. First Citizens' Fed. Credit Union, 170 F.3d 37, 49 (1st Cir.1999) ("credibility determinations are for the factfinder at trial, not for the court at summary judgment."); Perez-Trujillo v. Volvo Car Corp., 137 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir.1998) (credibility issues not proper on summary judgment); Molina Quintero v. Caribe G.E. Power Breakers, Inc., 234 F.Supp.2d 108, 113 (D.P.R.2002). "There is no room for credibility determinations, no room for the, measured weighing of conflicting evidence such as the trial process entails, and no room for the judge to superimpose his own ideas of probability and likelihood. In fact, only if the record, viewed in this manner and without regard to credibility ...