Sheridan v. Centerra Grp.
| Docket Number | CIVIL 19-2036 (PAD) |
| Decision Date | 31 May 2022 |
| Parties | LYNNE M. SHERIDAN, WILLIAM RÍOS, AND THE LEGAL CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THEM, Plaintiffs v. CENTERRA GROUP, LLC, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
William Ríos was discharged from his employment as an armed security officer with Centerra Group, LLC (“Centerra”), after falling asleep while on duty at an entrance to a hangar of helicopters, planes, equipment and offices of the United States Coast Guard at Air Station Borinquen in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Disagreeing with the employer's action, he, his spouse, and their legal conjugal partnership, sued Centerra under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”) and Puerto Rico law [1] alleging that Centerra discriminated against Mr. Ríos on the basis of disability, subjected him to a hostile work environment, impermissibly retaliated against him, and violated the Puerto Rico Constitution (Docket No. 11). Before the court is Centerra's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 24), which plaintiffs opposed (Docket No. 40).
Centerra replied (Docket No. 46). For the reasons explained below, Centerra's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the case DISMISSED.
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). The party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility” of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 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. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004).
As to issues on which the nonmovant has the burden of proof, the movant “need do no more than aver” absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Mottolo v. Fireman's Fund Insurance, 43 F.3d 723, 725 (1st Cir. 1995). All “reasonable factual inferences” must be drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought while ignoring conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation. Shafmaster v. United States, 707 F.3d. 130, 135 (1st Cir. 2013). Based on these parameters, a thorough review of the record shows no genuine factual dispute as to the facts identified in the section that follows and in Section III.
Except otherwise noted, the facts included in this Section are drawn from the well-pleaded facts asserted in the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 11) and the parties' Local Rule 56 submissions (Docket Nos. 23, 24, 38, 40, 44 and 46). Local Rule 56 is designed to “relieve the district court of any responsibility to ferret through the record to discern whether any material fact is genuinely in dispute.” CMI Capital Market Inv. v. González-Toro, 520 F.3d 58, 62 (1st Cir. 2008). It requires a party moving for summary judgment to accompany its motion with a brief statement of facts, set forth in numbered paragraphs and supported by specific citations to the record, that the movant contends are uncontested and material. Local Rule 56(b) and (e). The opposing party must admit, deny, or qualify those facts, with record support, paragraph by paragraph. Id. 56(c) and (e). While the district court may “forgive” a violation of Local Rule 56, litigants who ignore the rule do so “at their peril.” Mariani-Colón v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. ex rel. Chertoff, 511 F.3d 216, 219 (1st Cir. 2007).[2] Here, the court has reviewed every factual statement and counterstatement that the parties submitted plus supporting exhibits, and it has included in this Opinion and Order those facts that are material to the case and that were incorporated in statements that comport with summary judgment principles.[3]
Centerra is a federal contractor that provides armed security-officer services for U.S. Coast Guard facilities in Aguadilla. See, SUMF ¶ 1. Mr. Ríos was employed as an armed security officer at Centerra between September 14, 2018, and March 2, 2019. See, SUMF ¶¶ 3-4. He was hired on an “as needed” basis. See, SUMF ¶ 3; “Opposing Statement of Uncontested Facts” (“OSUMF”)(Docket No. 38), ¶¶ 10, 16. In the first two days of his employment he received on-the-job training for a total of eight hours, going through the different functions that were expected of him. See, Mr. Ríos' Deposition Transcript (Docket No. 23-2), pp. 38, 39, 48. Two of his supervisors were Lieutenant William López and Sergeant Gerald Ramos. See, SUMF ¶ 6. They, in turn, reported to Captain Víctor Caraballo, the Project Manager for Centerra's operations at the Coast Guard base in Aguadilla. See, SUMF ¶ 2; OSUMF ¶ 23.
As an armed security officer, Mr. Ríos could be assigned to various locations or “posts” within the base, including the Coast Guard Exchange -a shopping area known as the “PX” or “CGX”- the Ramey School, the teacher's parking lot gate and the aircraft hangar, among others. See, SUMF ¶¶ 8, 9, 15, 16; OSUMF ¶ 17. He could also do a “meal break” shift, where he would cover other guard's meal breaks and use his vehicle to move between the posts. See, SUMF ¶¶ 17-18; OSUMF ¶ 18. While assigned to a post, Mr. Ríos generally had to validate visitor identifications and vehicle registrations (proper identification is required to enter the Coast Guard's facilities) and patrol the assigned area. See, SUMF ¶¶ 9, 16; OSUMF ¶¶ 20, 21, 28.
On or around October 19, 2018, Mr. Ríos was in a building designated for use as a rest house by Centerra personnel. See, SUMF ¶ 19. According to Mr. Ríos, he used the rest house to check his blood glucose levels, and to use the bathroom and to change. See, Docket No. 23-2, p. 73. The bathroom is on the second floor. Id. That day, as Mr. Ríos was coming out of the bathroom, Sgt. Ramos thought that Mr. Ríos was in his underwear, and told him that he could not be in underwear in the house. See, SUMF ¶ 19; Docket No. 23-2, p. 76.[4]
On December 18, 2018, a civilian drove up to the Coast Guard Exchange entrance post while Mr. Ríos was assigned to the post. See, SUMF ¶¶ 20-21; Docket No. 23-2, p. 136. The civilian had a gun in the vehicle and Mr. Ríos asked him for it. Docket No. 23-2, p. 136. The civilian gave Mr. Ríos the gun and magazine. Id. at p. 137. Mr. Ríos called for assistance and did not get a response. Id. at p. 138. Then, he called another Centerra Security Officer. Id. The “CGX Armed Guard Post Order” is a document posted at the PX guard booth with a set of instructions on what the Coast Guard expects the security guards to do while at the post. See, SUMF ¶ 10. The Post Order states that “if the Guard believes the situation is developing so as to warrant a partner, the Guard should call for back up by contacting the Shift Supervisor (first choice) or Duty Security (second choice) or Security Chief (third choice.).” SUMF ¶ 23. Mr. Ríos testified that he was aware of the Post Order. See, SUMF ¶ 11. Capt. Caraballo investigated the incident, recommending that Mr. Ríos be reprimanded. Id. at ¶ 24. On December 24, 2018, Mr. Ríos received a letter of reprimand for retrieving, handling, and unloading another person's firearm. See, SUMF ¶¶ 24-26; Docket No. 23-16.[5]
On December 20, 2018, Mr. Ríos was assigned to the meal relief post on which he had to cover the 20-minute meal breaks of different guards. See, SUMF ¶ 43. Going from the first post to the second post, Mr. Ríos saw Sgt. Ramos following him. Id. In the second post, Sgt. Ramos asked Mr. Ríos what was taking him so long, offered him doughnuts, which Mr. Ríos declined, and left. Id. at ¶¶ 43-44. Mr. Ríos did not see Sgt. Ramos again for the rest of the shift. Id. at ¶ 44.
In December 2018, Mr. Ríos wrote two letters complaining about Sgt. Ramos, one on December 20, 2018, the second on December 22, 2018. See, SUMF ¶ 41; OSUMF ¶ 54; Docket No. 23-13. In the first letter, Mr. Ríos states that Sgt. Ramos should “learn to confront situations more professionally + respectfully.” Id. In the second letter, Mr. Ríos complained about his interaction with Sgt. Ramos during the meal break shift discussed above. See, SUMF ¶ 45; OSUMF ¶ 60. Capt. Caraballo and Robert Handel, Sr. Manager of Human Resources for Centerra, investigated Mr. Ríos' complaints, concluding that there was no harassment. See, SUMF ¶ 54.
In late December 2018 or early January 2019, Mr. Ríos met with Capt. Caraballo in connection with the alleged harassment. See, Docket No.23-2, p. 153. They both spoke with Mr. Handel over the phone. Id. Mr. Ríos mentioned his health conditions and Mr. Handel instructed Capt. Caraballo to give Mr. Ríos a form for Mr. Ríos to provide to his doctor, so that Centerra could determine whether Mr. Ríos needed any accommodation. Id. at 154-155. Capt. Caraballo left the document for Mr. Ríos in the housing main gate clipboard. See, SUMF ¶ 52. Mr. Ríos did not follow up with Capt. Caraballo about the document. See, SUMF ¶ 53.
On February 23, 2019, Mr. Ríos was assigned to the post in the hangar, where the Coast Guard had offices and kept helicopters, planes, and equipment. See, SUMF ¶¶ 28-29. At approximately 8:30 a.m., Lt....
To continue reading
Request your trial