Baltodano v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme (I.A.) Corp.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4011
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Baltodano, a Merck employee born outside Puerto Rico, alleges he was unjustly fired due to xenophobic bias and/or without just cause, and claims breach of contract and defamation.
- Merck and Vazquez obtained summary judgment from a district court, though discovery allegedly remained incomplete, particularly regarding Merck's discipline of other managers.
- Baltodano argued Merck failed to disclose comparative disciplinary actions, which could rebut claims of just cause and discriminatory motive.
- The district court granted summary judgment before Baltodano could complete discovery, prompting Baltodano to appeal for remand due to the discovery gap.
- The First Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment rulings, vacated on claims under Law 80, Law 100, and defamation, and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, the court emphasized that there was a fair-chance discovery obligation and that sua sponte summary judgment on defamation was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery gaps invalidated summary judgment on Law 80. | Baltodano argues Merck’s withholding prevented fair proof. | Merck contends summary judgment was proper based on record evidence. | Not ripen; discovery gaps precluded summary judgment on Law 80. |
| Whether Law 100 claim should be dismissed at summary judgment given discovery issues. | Baltodano contends lack of discovery hampered proving discrimination. | Merck asserts established record supports dismissal. | Summary judgment vacated; fair record requires discovery. |
| Whether defamation claim could be resolved by summary judgment where no motion had been filed. | Baltodano asserts defamation was not properly addressed. | Merck did not move for summary judgment on defamation. | Defamation judgment vacated; not properly decided on sua sponte basis. |
| Whether breach of contract claim should be decided without full discovery. | Baltodano argues evidence of without-just-cause termination requires discovery. | Merck contends evidence supports dismissal without need for further discovery. | Summary judgment vacated; remand for full development. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for further proceedings due to discovery issues. | Baltodano seeks remand to obtain necessary evidence. | Merck resists further discovery delays. | Remand granted; case to proceed after discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2000) (discovery gaps prevent premature summary judgment)
- Alvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi Cola of P.R. Bottling Co., 152 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1998) (Law 80/100 burden-shifting framework)
- Galera v. Johanns, 612 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2010) (context for evidentiary development and discovery)