Collazo-Rosado v. University of Puerto Rico
775 F. Supp. 2d 376
D.P.R.2011Background
- Plaintiff Collazo-Rosado alleged ADA Title V retaliation and 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims arising from discriminatory employment conditions at the University of Puerto Rico Humacao Campus during 2006–2009.
- Plaintiff disclosed Crohn's Disease and requested accommodations; initial accommodation granted.
- Co-Director Gomez became Plaintiff's supervisor in Aug 2008; Plaintiff alleges worsening harassment after disclosure.
- March 2009 incidents included questions about bathroom breaks, adverse work assignments, and a discriminatory meeting; Plaintiff claims retaliation followed HEEND involvement.
- Plaintiff filed ADA/retaliation charges with EEOC in April–May 2009; University refused to renew her contract, effective Sept 30, 2009.
- The district court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal motion, finding Eleventh Amendment immunity barred monetary damages but allowed equitable relief; this decision is the subject of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA Title V retaliation claims can be standalone claims without an underlying Title I/II/III violation. | Collazo-Rosado contends Title V claims are independent. | UPR argues Title V retaliation must be tied to an underlying Title I/II/III violation. | Title V claims must arise from underlying Title I/II/III violation. |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the Title V retaliation claim for monetary damages. | Plaintiff argues abrogation allows damages. | Immunity shields state from monetary damages in Title I; Title V abrogation uncertain. | Damages barred; immunity governs; equitable relief may proceed. |
| Whether compensatory or punitive damages are available for ADA Title I-related retaliation. | Plaintiff seeks damages for retaliation. | Damages unavailable under Title I retaliation framework. | Compensatory and punitive damages not available. |
| Whether equitable relief (back pay and reinstatement) is available despite immunity. | Equitable relief should be available to remedy retaliation. | Damages are barred, but equitable relief may be sought. | Equitable relief viable; back pay and reinstatement may be sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (ADA Title I monetary damages barred; sovereign immunity limits relief)
- Castro Ortiz v. Fajardo, 133 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D.P.R. 2001) (ADA Title V retaliation analyzed in context of Title I discrimination at work)
- Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001) (Title V retaliation immunity depends on abrogation history)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II abrogation of sovereign immunity for access to courts; relevance to Title V theories)