245 F. Supp. 3d 360
D.P.R.2017Background
- Lopez‑Rosario (born 1963) worked for Programa Seasonal Head Start from 2002 to 2014 as a driver/handyman; his hours were cut in May 2013 (reclassified to driver, pay and hours reduced to ~20/week) amid federal sequestration budget cuts.
- He received several written warnings between 2011–2012 for timekeeping and failure to complete reports; Programa offered continued employment at reduced hours for FY 2014 and he did not sign the 2014 contract.
- Programa implemented austerity measures after a 5.27% federal funding cut; other employees (e.g., Muñoz) also had hours reduced; the Program later ceased providing transportation services and did not fill driver/handyman roles.
- Lopez‑Rosario filed an administrative charge with Puerto Rico ADU (reciprocal with EEOC) and later sued under the ADEA and Puerto Rico employment statutes; the court narrowed federal claims to the ADEA and dismissed other federal claims earlier.
- The court granted Programa summary judgment: dismissed ADEA claims (failure to prove age was but‑for cause / failure on fourth prima facie prong), dismissed individual claims against Carrero and board, and dismissed Puerto Rico Law 100, Law 80, and Article 1802 claims (all with prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative exhaustion / naming of Carrero & board | Narrative in ADU charge referenced Carrero; Lopez‑Rosario argues that put them on notice. | Programa argued Carrero and board were not named as employers in the charge. | Court: Exhaustion satisfied—narrative mention and "substantial identity" doctrine put Carrero and board on notice. |
| Capacity of Board of Directors to be sued | Plaintiffs sued board separately. | Programa argued the board is not a separate legal person and suit against board is redundant. | Court: Board not a separate legal entity under Rule 17(b); claims against BOARD OF DIRECTORS dismissed as redundant. |
| Individual liability of Carrero under ADEA | Plaintiffs proceeded against Carrero personally. | Programa argued ADEA does not impose individual liability except narrow exception for controlling owner/officer. | Court: Carrero not subject to individual ADEA liability (no evidence of significant ownership/ultimate control); ADEA claims against Carrero dismissed. |
| Merits—ADEA prima facie / adverse action (constructive discharge vs hours cut) | Lopez‑Rosario: reduction in hours/pay/reclassification and alleged ageist comment + grievance treatment amounted to constructive discharge or disparate treatment. | Programa: actions were nondiscriminatory austerity measures due to funding cuts; other employees similarly affected; comment was isolated and not age‑linked. | Court: Not a constructive discharge (single remark + grievance process insufficient); plaintiff proved reduction in hours (adverse action) but failed 4th prima facie prong—no showing employer treated age non‑neutrally or that similarly situated younger employee kept position. Summary judgment for Programa. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tobin v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 775 F.3d 448 (1st Cir.) (summary judgment standard and role in evaluating evidence)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework in discrimination cases)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (plaintiff must prove age was the but‑for cause)
- Suders v. Porter, 542 U.S. 129 (constructive discharge requires intolerable working conditions)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (isolated remarks ordinarily insufficient for hostile work environment)
- Chao v. Hotel Oasis, Inc., 493 F.3d 26 (narrow exception for individual liability of corporate officers)
- Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507 (individual employees generally not liable under ADEA)
- Del Valle‑Santana v. Servicios Legales De P.R., Inc., 804 F.3d 127 (First Circuit on prima facie age discrimination analysis)
- Williams v. Raytheon Co., 220 F.3d 16 (what constitutes a "significantly younger" comparator)
- Velez v. Thermo King de P.R., Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (age difference significance analysis)