Collazo-Rosado v. University of Puerto Rico
765 F.3d 86
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Collazo has Crohn's disease and sought ADA accommodations at the UPR Humacao center.
- She was hired in 2006 on a contract through Sept. 2007, renewed twice on a one-year basis.
- Méndez and later Gómez required advance notice for absences and attendance punching; Collazo sometimes clocked in late or without proper preauthorization.
- Gómez became Collazo's supervisor in Aug. 2008 and approved most medical leaves but required adherence to attendance rules.
- In 2009, Gómez and others criticized performance and attendance; a memo reiterating the attendance policy was issued.
- Collazo's contract was not renewed in Aug. 2009 due to restructuring, and two others were hired to replace her; center performance subsequently improved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA retaliation via circumstantial evidence | Collazo alleges protected activity and causal link to nonrenewal | UPR and Gómez offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (performance and attendance) | Pretext not shown; summary judgment proper for defendants |
| Pretext in nonrenewal explanations | Different explanations imply pretext | Rationales were consistent and supported by record | No genuine pretext; explanations not inconsistent enough to negate proffered reasons |
| First-Amendment retaliation under §1983 | Speech about disability rights could trigger retaliation | ADA retaliation suffices; speech not shown as motivating factor | No triable issue; grant of summary judgment upheld |
| ADA exclusivity vs. §1983 relief | ADA may not preclude §1983 retaliation claims | FDistri stops at pretext; not necessary to decide exclusive remedy issue | Court declines broad ruling; even assuming non-exclusivity, §1983 fails on pretext grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 707 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2013) (factors for causation and prima facie showing in ADA retaliation)
- Domínguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424 (1st Cir. 2000) (pretext analysis allows gaps in explanations if inconsistent)
- Harrington v. Aggregate Indus.-Ne. Region, Inc., 668 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2012) (incoherencies can show pretext unless record shows legitimate rationale)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (1990) (pretext framework; admitting falsity of explanations)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (burden-shifting framework for First Amendment retaliation)
- Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 1998) (consistency of multiple rationales supports credibility)
- Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2011) (“normally” not equal to “always” in evaluating evidence)