Loubriel Velez, Willie v. Aireko Construction Management, LLC
KLAN202400899
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Mar 31, 2025Background
- Willie Loubriel Vélez sued Aireko Construction Management Services, LLC (Aireko) for unjustified dismissal and age discrimination, alleging termination without cause and replacement by a younger worker.
- Loubriel was initially hired as Project Manager, then moved to Senior Superintendent as of January 2022, with a salary increase, but claimed the change was a demotion without explanation.
- Aireko alleged Loubriel's dismissal was due to repeated safety and performance violations, particularly his failure to properly supervise and report safety issues related to the fabrication and installation of construction materials.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the lower court granted Aireko's motion, finding just cause for termination and no evidence of age discrimination.
- Loubriel appealed, arguing that there were genuine disputes of material fact and that the lower court erred in its findings and evidentiary rulings.
- The Appeals Court majority affirmed the lower court, but there was a dissent suggesting factual disputes required a trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Just Cause for Dismissal | Loubriel claims he was terminated without legitimate cause. | Aireko argues repeated safety violations justified termination. | Aireko had just cause; dismissal was proper. |
| Age Discrimination (Ley 100) | Loubriel claims replacement by a younger employee is evidence of age bias. | Aireko asserts there is no evidence Loubriel was replaced by a younger person. | Plaintiff did not prove he was replaced by a younger person; no prima facie case. |
| Compliance with Summary Judgment Rules | Court failed to credit disputed facts or improperly weighed evidence. | Aireko submitted admissible evidence supporting no factual dispute. | Court complied with civil procedure rules; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Judicial Notice of Other Proceedings | Admissions in related cases show Loubriel was not at fault. | Facts from other cases are not adjudicative or dispositive here. | Court did not err in declining judicial notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camaleglo v. Dorado Wings, Inc., 118 DPR 20 (Puerto Rico 1986) (clarifies proper use and standards for summary judgment)
- Oriental Bank v. Caballero García, 212 DPR 671 (Puerto Rico 2023) (defines material fact for summary judgment)
- Segarra Rivera v. Int'l Shipping, 208 DPR 964 (Puerto Rico 2022) (summarizes current Puerto Rico discrimination standards post-2017 reforms)
- Roldán Flores v. M. Cuebas, 199 DPR 664 (Puerto Rico 2018) (summary judgment must be supported by admissible evidence)
- López Fantauzzi v. 100% Natural, 181 DPR 92 (Puerto Rico 2011) (explains discriminatory dismissal burden-shifting post-Ley 4-2017)
- Díaz v. Wyndham Hotel Corp., 155 DPR 364 (Puerto Rico 2001) (relevant for shifting burdens in discrimination cases)
- Vera v. Dr. Bravo, 161 DPR 308 (Puerto Rico 2004) (emphasizes economy and proper limits for summary judgment)
- Sucn. Maldonado v. Sucn. Maldonado, 166 DPR 154 (Puerto Rico 2005) (right to trial where genuine factual dispute exists)
- UPR v. Laborde Torres, 180 DPR 253 (Puerto Rico 2010) (judicial notice standards)