Vivoni-Trigo v. Mun. of Rojo
| Decision Date | 11 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 11-1756 (GAG) |
| Parties | GIANINA VIVONI-TRIGO, Plaintiff, v. MUN. OF CABO ROJO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Gianina Vivoni-Trigo ("Plaintiff") brings suit against the Municipality of Cabo Rojo (the "Municipality"), Mayor Perza Rodríguez Quiñones ("Rodríguez"), Cynthia Millán Ferrer ("Millán"), Jorge Morales Wiscovitch ("Morales") and Benjamín Rivera Colón ("Rivera") for alleged violations of anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation statutes. (Docket No. 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff brings claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment in the form of sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") for violation of equal protection rights. Plaintiff also brings claims for supplemental state law violations of Puerto Rico Law 17 of April 22, 1988 ("Law 17"), P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, §§ 155 et seq. and Article 1802 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico ("Article 1802"), P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, §§ 5141. Pending before the court are defendants' three summary judgment motions filed separately. Because the arguments raised by defendants are intertwined, the court addresses all motions jointly as follows.
First, the Municipality filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. (Docket No. 63.) Plaintiff opposed the motion (Docket No. 93) and submitted a statement of material facts (Docket No. 96). The Municipality replied (Docket No. 112), Plaintiff supplemented its opposition (Docket No. 121), and the Municipality filed a supplemental reply (Docket No. 131). After reviewing the parties submissions and pertinent law, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Municipality's Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket No. 63.
Second, defendants Perza, Millán and Morales (collectively "Defendant Supervisors") fileda Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's claims and the complaint in its entirety. (Docket No. 81). On that same date, Defendant Supervisors filed a memorandum in support of their motion and a statement of uncontested material facts. (Docket Nos. 83 & 84). Plaintiff opposed the motion (Docket No. 113), responded to the statement of material facts (Docket No. 114), filed a supplemental statement of material facts (Docket No. 115), and supplemented their opposition (Docket No. 119). Defendant Supervisors replied (Docket Nos. 140 & 142). Plaintiff presented a sur-reply (Docket No. 147) and Defendant Supervisors sought to strike it (Docket No. 148). After reviewing the parties' submissions and pertinent law, the court GRANTS Defendant Supervisors' Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket No. 81.
Finally, Rivera filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 85). Plaintiff opposed the motion and incorporated all the arguments raised against other defendants (Docket No. 118).1 After reviewing the parties' submissions and pertinent law, the court GRANTS Rivera's Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket No. 85.
I. Standard of Review
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 a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). "An issue is genuine if 'it may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party' at trial, and material if it 'possess[es] the capacity to sway the outcome of the litigation under the applicable law.'" Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 98 (1st Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 581 (1st Cir. 1994). The nonmovant may establish a fact is genuinely in dispute by citing particular evidence in the record or showing that either the materials cited by the movant "do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(B). If the court finds that some genuine factual issue remains, the resolution of which could affect the outcome of the case, then the court must deny summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and give that party the benefit of any and all reasonable inferences. Id. at 255. Moreover, at the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Id. Summary judgment may be appropriate, however, if the non-moving party's case rests merely upon "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Forestier Fradera v. Mun. of Mayaguez, 440 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Benoit v. Technical Mfg. Corp., 331 F.3d 166, 173 (1st Cir. 2003)).
III. Relevant Factual Background2
On February 15, 2001, the Municipality enacted and approved official regulations proscribing sexual harassment in the workplace and establishing its policies, rules, and procedures related therewith. (See Docket No. 63-4.) At all times relevant to this case, Rodríguez was the Mayor of the Municipality; Morales was the Deputy-Mayor of the Municipality and Millán was theDirector of Development and Tourism of the Municipality. (Docket No. 3.) Also, at all times relevant to the case at bar, Plaintiff was employed with the Municipality and worked as a tourist guide at the Cabo Rojo Lighthouse. (Docket Nos. 3; 63-2 at 9.) Pursuant to Plaintiff's testimony, she was not provided with a copy of the Municipality's sexual harassment policy nor did she receive any training on the topic. (Docket No. 98-1 at 75.) Pedro Guadalupe ("Guadalupe") also worked at the Lighthouse as an administrative assistant at all relevant times to this case. (Docket Nos. 3; 98-1 at 14.) On January 2009, Millán became Plaintiff's and Guadalupe's immediate supervisor. (Docket No. 137-1 at 5.) Millán was, at all times relevant, Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. (Docket No. 84-1 at 72.) Millán did not work at the Lighthouse; rather, her office was located elsewhere in the town of Cabo Rojo. (Docket No. 63-2 at 37 and 38.) Plaintiff testified that between November 2009 and the summer of 2010 (the relevant timeframe for this case) Millán visited the Lighthouse on no more than three occasions. (Docket No. 63-2 at 40.)
In early December 2009, Rivera was assigned to work at the Lighthouse as Worker 13. (Docket No. 96, ¶ 21; 98-1 at 16, 17.) The only individuals stationed at the Lighthouse at all times relevant to this case were Plaintiff, Guadalupe, and Rivera. (Docket No. 98-1 at 14.) To access the Lighthouse, the aforementioned employees had to use an all-terrain official vehicle. (Docket No. 63-2 at 27 and 28.) On or about late December 2009, Rivera allegedly began to sexually harass Plaintiff. (Docket No. 98-1; 18.) Plaintiff never complained to Millán regarding Rivera's conduct or innuendos. (Docket No. 84-1 at 39-40.) Plaintiff does not know if Millán nor Rodríguez witnessed Rivera's inappropriate behavior towards Plaintiff. (Docket No. 63-2 at 40; 84-1 at 69.)
Plaintiff testified she decided not to approach Millán because she had a "feeling that she would never do something about it." (Docket No. 63-2 at 40-41.) Plaintiff alleges that Rivera boasted he was "untouchable" or he received protection from Millán, nevertheless Plaintiff has no knowledge or evidence that Rivera had any sort of relationship with Millán outside of the workplace nor does Plaintiff provide evidence that Rivera had any sort of relationship with any managerial personnel of the Municipality or Mayor Rodríguez herself. (Docket No. 84-1 at 37.) Plantiff alleged Rivera was assigned duties akin to a tour guide, however, she recalled one occasion between December 2009 and June 2010 when Rivera served as a tour guide during the Mexican Consul's visit to the Lighthouse. (Docket No. 84-1 at 67-68.) This bothered Plaintiff because it made her feel her work as a tour guide was not good. Id.
Guadalupe testified of having complained to Millán regarding Rivera's conduct towards females. ( Docket No. 99-1 at 31.) Guadalupe said he told Millán that he saw Rivera taking pictures of mostly females in bikinis and asking for their e-mails to send them the pictures. (Docket No. 99-1 at 71-72.)4 According to Guadalupe, on or about March or April 2010, he called then Deputy Mayor Morales to inform him of the issues that were taking place at the Lighthouse. (Docket No. 98-1 at 34, 36, 78, 79.) Guadalupe testified that he told Morales that there were "situations occurring with Plaintiff" and what he perceived was Rivera's conduct towards Plaintiff, i.e., Rivera would make personal complaints against Plaintiff during the commute to the Lighthouse, Rivera made comments regarding the way Plaintiff dressed or her body parts, Rivera would sometimes follow Plaintiff around the Lighthouse and that Plaintiff would often times cry. (Docket No. 98-1 at 36, 37, 79.) Morales responded advising Guadalupe to tell Plaintiff to give him a call. ( Docket No. 98-1 at 37.) Guadalupe gave Plaintiff Morales' message "to call him". (Docket Nos. 96 at 10; 114 at 2.)
Guadalupe never informed his direct supervisor, Millán, about the sexual harassment he observed from Rivera towards Pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial