Cortés-Rivera v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
626 F.3d 21
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- Cortés-Rivera, a doctor, worked as an independent contractor for DOCR from 2002–2007 to provide emergency/ambulatory services at Guayama facility.
- DOCR contracted CHSC to manage DOCR's Correctional Health Program with CHSC supervising DOCR employees/contractors since 2005.
- Cortés-Rivera was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome in early 2006, a disability established for ADA purposes.
- A September 2006 accommodation request to address punch-clock accessibility was denied on grounds of non-employee status, though some accommodation was suggested.
- Budget-based actions in October–November 2006 led to proposed terminations of several professionals; Cortés-Rivera was later terminated effective January 8, 2007, despite a new contract Feb 20, 2007.
- Cortés-Rivera filed suit November 20, 2007 alleging disability discrimination and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for CHSC/DOCR on multiple grounds and declined to exercise jurisdiction over state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cortés-Rivera timely opposed summary judgment | Cortés-Rivera contends he was unfairly surprised and should have had more time | District court acted within discretion in deeming opposition late | No abuse of discretion; opposition was timely enough to warrant review |
| Whether Cortés-Rivera was an employee under Title I ADA/§504 | Cortés-Rivera argues status as employee for ADA and §504 claims | Defendant asserts non-employee status for both claims | Waived on Title I issue; §504 not reached due to waiver and briefing deficiencies |
| Whether §504 employment-discrimination claims survive with/without ADA employee definition | §504 discrimination can proceed independent of ADA employee definition | Incorporation of employee-definition disputed; issues not preserved | Not reached due to preservation/briefing problems; declined to address on appeal |
| Whether Cortés-Rivera stated a federal retaliation claim | Retaliation alleged under federal law via EEOC filings; pleaded in complaint | Count Three purportedly state-law retaliation only; no federal retaliation claim pleaded | Rejected as pled; retaliation claim not properly pleaded as federal and dismissed as state-law claim; pendent state claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1995) (abuse of discretion standard for summary-judgment-timing considerations)
- Perez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, 440 F.3d 531 (1st Cir. 2006) (extension of time when justified by surprise or unfairness)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (perfunctory briefing leads to waiver of issues)
- Santiago v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 138 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (adequacy of objections to magistrate recommendations; briefing standards)
- Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 339 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (pleading rules; determining federal vs. state-law claims in retaliation context)
- Wojewski v. Rapid City Reg'l Hosp., Inc., 450 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2006) (statutory interpretation of § 794(d) and ADA employee definition debate)