Gerald v. University of Puerto Rico
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1925
1st Cir.2013Background
- Gerald, a scientist at the University of Puerto Rico, alleges supervisor-directed sexual harassment at the CPRC/Cayo Santiago and University liability under Title VII.
- Alleged harassment includes (1) April 15, 2007 hotel parking lot proposition, (2) May 29, 2007 breast-grabbing, and (3) June 7, 2007 lewd remarks at a staff meeting.
- Investigation by Lopez found Gerald not credible on the first two acts and deemed the third act as a non-severe joke; recommended an administrative hearing and relocation of Gerald.
- University resolution (Nov. 8, 2007) dismissed the harassment complaint, started further proceedings against Gerald, transferred her to the Laboratory, and downgraded her title and bonus; Gerald later resigned in 2008.
- Gerald filed suit alleging Title VII claims (harassment, retaliation, constructive discharge) and Puerto Rico Law 17 and 69 claims; district court granted summary judgment; First Circuit vacated in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the harassment by a supervisor was severe or pervasive enough for Title VII liability | Gerald argues acts were severe, pervasive, and based on sex | University argues acts were not severe or pervasive | Hostile environment claim survives summary judgment by jury question |
| Whether the harassment constitutes quid pro quo claims against the supervisor | Evidence shows demotion linked to rejection of advances | Demotion based on performance/insubordination, not retaliation for rejection | Quid pro quo claim survives summary judgment and warrants trial |
| Whether the University is liable for retaliation against Gerald for opposing harassment | Protected activity (EEOC filing) caused adverse actions | No materially adverse action shown; timing insufficient | Retaliation claim affirmed to be dismissed (no prima facie case) |
| Whether Gerald’s constructive discharge claim is supported | Transfer, pay changes, and increased commute made conditions intolerable | Transfer and inconveniences not objectively intolerable | Constructive discharge claim affirmed as lacking objective intolerability |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (establishes hostile environment framework)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for supervisor harassment under Faragher-Ellerth)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2005) (six-factor test for severity and pervasiveness in hostile environment cases)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (causation and adverse action standards in retaliation claims)
- Valentín-Almeyda v. Municipality of Aguadilla, 447 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2006) (tolls and timing in retaliation/limitations context; causation proximity considerations)