Cruz v. BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO. PR, INC.
777 F. Supp. 2d 321
D.P.R.2011Background
- Cruz, a former Bristol Myers employee in Humacao, Puerto Rico, was terminated in August 2007 as part of a plant-wide closure after a paired comparison analysis of four Corrective Maintenance Mechanics.
- The termination phase was Phase II of a Retention Bonus Program, which provided Cruz a 50% annual salary bonus upon completion of service, with no job-secure promise in the related letter dated July 29, 2003.
- Bristol Myers adopted an ERISA Severance Plan in 2006; Cruz did not sign the General Release, nor did he pursue any administrative appeal under the Plan after termination.
- Prior to termination, the company conducted a six-criterion paired comparison to rank the mechanics, with seniority used as a tie-breaker when ranks overlapped.
- Cruz later pursued claims under ERISA, ADEA (disparate treatment and disparate impact), Puerto Rico Law 100, Law 80, and a breach-of-contract theory based on the retention-letter terms.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Bristol Myers’ motion for summary judgment, addressing motions to strike, deemed admissions, and the various ERISA and labor-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ERISA exhaustion required? | Cruz contends no exhaustion is required for severance benefits claims. | Bristol Myers asserts failure to exhaust Administrative remedies bars the ERISA claim. | ERISA exhaustion required; summary judgment on ERISA claims granted. |
| ADEA disparate treatment established? | Cruz argues age discrimination caused termination under 40+ workers. | Bristol Myers argues no discriminatory motive; decisions based on performance and seniority. | No prima facie discrimination shown; ADEA disparate treatment claim granted to Bristol Myers. |
| ADEA disparate impact viable? | Cruz claims the practices disproportionately affected older workers. | Pairs and seniority-based ranking are reasonable and neutral to age. | Disparate impact claim dismissed; practices deemed reasonable. |
| Law 100 just cause and discrimination claim viability? | Cruz asserts Law 100 protections were violated with discriminatory discharge. | Defendant shows justified, Law 100-compliant termination and no discriminatory motive. | Law 100 claim merit for just cause; dismissal granted for discrimination under Law 100. |
| Breach of contract claim viability? | Cruz alleges a contract arising from retention-letter promises of job retention. | The letter is an offer; no binding contract or meeting of the minds. | No valid contract; breach of contract claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lohnes v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., 272 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.2001) (Rule 37(c) applies to summary judgment; failing to disclose evidence barred)
- Morales v. A.C. Orssleff's EFTF, 246 F.3d 32 (1st Cir.2001) (contradictory affidavits creating issues of fact improper)
- Colantuoni v. Alfred Calcagni & Sons, Inc., 44 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1994) (contradictory testimony cannot create genuine issue of fact)
- Zannino v. United States, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1990) (perfunctory arguments waiver rule)