Velez v. Janssen Ortho LLC, CIV. 03-1079(RLA).
| Decision Date | 22 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 03-1079(RLA).,CIV. 03-1079(RLA). |
| Citation | 389 F.Supp.2d 253 |
| Parties | Gladden VELEZ, Plaintiff, v. JANSSEN ORTHO LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Carlos M. Vergne-Vargas, Victor P. Miranda-Corrada, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.
Carl E. Schuster, Mariela Rexach Rexach, Schuster Usera & Aguilo, LLP, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.
The Court has before it defendant JANSSEN ORTHO LLC's (JANSSEN) Motion for Summary Judgment (docket No. 38), which plaintiff GLADDEN VELEZ (VELEZ) has duly opposed (docket Nos. 44 and 46). See also JANSSEN's reply (docket No. 49).
On August 7, 1989, VELEZ began working for JANSSEN, in its Gurabo, Puerto Rico, Chemical Plant. Years later, in June of 1997, she filed a first complaint before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, Caguas Part, ("the Caguas Court") alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for allegedly reporting manufacturing irregularities.
On November 2, 1998, VELEZ requested a transfer to the position of Senior Packaging Engineer. JANSSEN denied her request on December 10, 1998, on the basis that she lacked the requisite experience and academic qualifications.
On December 31, 1998, the Gurabo chemical plant closed. VELEZ received $12,704.86 in a severance package. Roughly two weeks later, on January 12, 1999, VELEZ amended her Caguas Court complaint to include allegations of retaliatory failure to transfer and termination.
One month later, on February 15, 1999, VELEZ sent JANSSEN a résumé to be considered for the position of Manufacturing Supervisor. Then, on May 9, 1999, she forwarded another résumé to be considered for the position of Senior Packaging Engineer. This latter position is the same job she had applied for in November 1998, and for which she had already been found unqualified. JANSSEN did not respond to plaintiff's requests for consideration. Thus, on December 4, 2001, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Caguas Court, alleging, inter alia, that JANSSEN continued to retaliate against her because it failed to consider her or respond to her 1999 job applications.1
At the time of this last request for employment in May of 1999, CARLOS OTERO (OTERO) was JANSSEN's Human Resources and Coach Leader. Among other things, OTERO supervised the recruiting and staffing functions of the Human Resources Department at JANSSEN. OTERO's role during the hiring process was to identify open positions with the directors of each department, identify business and organizational needs, and hire the persons as needed.
JANSSEN's recruiting procedures require that any vacancy be posted first within the plant site, then through a JOHNSON & JOHNSON intercompany posting and, finally, that it be published to external applicants. A department's hiring manager initially sends the Human Resources Department a staffing request. Thereafter, both departments work on identifying the essential requirements for the position and Human Resources begins the process of looking for qualified candidates. Human Resources usually identifies five or six qualified candidates and schedules the corresponding interviews. The department's hiring manager then interviews the qualified candidates and decides which of the applicants it wishes to hire. Finally, OTERO verifies that there is headcount approval and, if so, makes an offer of employment.
On August 8, 2001, while employed with Bristol Myers Squibb, plaintiff sent JANSSEN's Human Resources Department a résumé and cover letter requesting to be considered for any available position and listing several generic categories. VELEZ sent her letter again on August 15, 2001, via facsimile transmission. According to defendant, plaintiff's request did not fit into the Company's recruiting procedures inasmuch as the Human Resources Department works with applications for specific positions, it does not function as a "head hunter" seeking to place a candidate. Plaintiff has offered no evidence to contest this. Furthermore, plaintiff's résumé did not specify or describe the work experience she had obtained at each position held throughout her career.
JANSSEN responded to plaintiff's generalized application through letter dated August 16, 2001, in which OTERO informed VELEZ that she would not be considered for an interview or for re-employment. OTERO testified he opted to respond to plaintiff in writing advising her that she would not be considered for employment because she had submitted two résumés and cover letters, one via certified mail and another via facsimile transmission, and because he knew that VELEZ had filed a court case against JANSSEN.
The uncontested evidence shows that at the time of receipt of plaintiff's letters the only published vacancies were 2nd and 3rd Manufacturing Process Facilitator ("MPF") positions. However, pursuant to the recruitment policy described above, these positions were not open to external candidates at the time of plaintiff's communication, inasmuch as JANSSEN was still in the process of offering the position to candidates within the plant site. Nonetheless, plaintiff filed a charge before the Puerto Rico Anti-discrimination Unit alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII's retaliation and because of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). After obtaining a right to sue letter, she filed the present lawsuit.
Plaintiff's complaint also alleges she is disabled or, at least, perceived as such by JANSSEN, inasmuch as she suffers from a bipolar disorder and that her application for employment was also denied because of this in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff bases her contention regarding "perceived as" disability on a conversation she alleges she held on December of 1998 with LAURA RODRIGUEZ (RODRIGUEZ), then Human Resources Manager.
Plaintiff asserts that during that conversation, which involved VELEZ' annual evaluation, an evaluation that yielded unsatisfactory results, RODRIGUEZ said that she did not care if plaintiff had to take pills. VELEZ further claims that DEAN KIMBARIS (KIMBARIS), a supervisor at the Chemical Plant in 1998, had also mocked her by saying "She's crazy," referring to plaintiff. However, neither of these two persons were working with JANSSEN at the time of the employment decision subject of this complaint.
JANSSEN contends, and the record shows, that VELEZ' medical records' first reference to a diagnosis of bipolarity occurs on November 12, 2002, that is, fifteen (15) months after JANSSEN's alleged failure to hire plaintiff in August of 2001, as alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff has failed to bring forth any evidence that she had been diagnosed with bipolarity before that date.
The record also shows that KIMBARIS left JANSSEN the summer of 1998, before the plant closing which occurred in December of 1998. Thus, neither KIMBARIS nor RODRIGUEZ were working at JANSSEN during August of 2001.
VELEZ stated during her deposition that when she receives medical attention and follows the instructions on how to handle her condition, she can perform her duties equally or even better than any other person without the condition. She also acknowledged that bipolarity only affects her ability to perform activities if she is not treated, if she is not medicated, or if she does not follow the doctor's instructions which she has been consistently doing since 1990 and up until the present time.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence before the court shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Town of Greenfield, 370 F.3d 215, 218 (1st Cir.2004). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court "must scrutinize the evidence in the light most agreeable to the nonmoving party, giving that party the benefit of any and all reasonable inferences." Cox v. Hainey, 391 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir.2004) (emphasis added). While carrying out this task, the Court can safely ignore "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Suárez v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc., 229 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir.2000).
To this end, the nonmovant "bears the burden of producing specific facts sufficient to deflect the swing of the summary judgment scythe." Mulvihill v. Top-Flite Golf Co., 335 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir.2003). This is the case even when elements such as motive or intent are an issue. See Santiago v. Canon U.S.A., 138 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1998). A plaintiff "may not prevail simply by asserting an inequity and tacking on the self-serving conclusion that the defendant was motivated by a discriminatory animus." Id. It is axiomatic that a motion for summary judgment "cannot be defeated by conclusory allegations, harsh invective, empty rhetoric, strained inferences, or unsupported conjecture." Collier v. City of Chicopee, 158 F.3d 601, 604 (1st Cir.1998). Plaintiff's subjective characterization of events is equally unavailing when the underlying events are not themselves revealed. See Simas v. First Citizens' Fed. Credit Union, 170 F.3d 37, 50 (1st Cir.1999). Finally, "[t]he mere scintilla of evidence" is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Pursuant to Title VII, it is unlawful "for an employer to discriminate against any of its employees or applicants for employment ... because he [or she] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII], or because the [her or she] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under [Title VII]." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). See also Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 269...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marrero v. Misey Rest., Inc.
...to offer testimony or information either to a legislative, administrative, or judicial forum); Velez v. Janssen Ortho LLC, 389 F. Supp. 2d 253, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23134 (D.P.R. 2005), aff'd, 467 F.3d 802, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27272 (1st Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's decision to ......
-
Torres-Alman v. Verizon Wireless Puerto Rico, Inc.
...plaintiff can make a showing of disability. Lessard v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 175 F.3d 193, 197 (1st Cir.1999); Velez v. Janssen' Ortho LLC, 389 F.Supp.2d 253, 263 (D.P.R.2005). A disability under the ADA is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of a person's ......
-
Douglas v. Dist. of Columbia Hous. Auth.
...because, as non-decisionmakers, they could not have been the “sole” or “but-for” cause of any adverse action. SeeVelez v. Janssen Ortho LLC, 389 F.Supp.2d 253, 264 (D.P.R.2005) (concluding that statements by non-decisonmakers, including that plaintiff was “crazy,” were “unrelated to the dec......
-
Rivera-Mercado v. Scotiabank De Puerto Rico-Inter., Civil No. 06-1018(JAG).
...plaintiff can make a showing of disability. Lessard v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 175 F.3d 193, 197 (1st Cir.1999); Vélez v. Janssen Ortho LLC, 389 F.Supp.2d 253, 263 (D.P.R.2005); Sifre v. Department of Health, 38 F.Supp.2d 91, 99 (D.P.R.1999) (citing Roth v. Lutheran General Hosp., 57 F.3d 144......