919 F. Supp. 2d 198
D.P.R.2013Background
- Plaintiff Karla'Malave Torres filed suit on May 10, 2011 alleging pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and the PDA.
- Defendants include Jose Cusido, Sterling Foods, Inc., and unnamed insurers; motion for summary judgment was filed and opposed.
- Plaintiff alleges termination/resignation and discriminatory acts related to pregnancy; issues center on whether termination was pretextual or due to pregnancy.
- Plaintiff’s self-serving affidavit (Docket No. 69-1) was challenged as a sham; court analyzes whether it should be struck or weighed.
- Plaintiff began employment May 14, 2010, with a base salary and expectations to develop Panama and Puerto Rico markets; no sales were generated during tenure.
- Plaintiff informed Cusido of pregnancy on Sept. 6, 2010; after concerns over orders and market development, defendants urged resignation in September 2010; EEOC charge followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff proves a prima facie PDA/Title VII claim and pretext | Plaintiff argues pregnancy was a protected status and termination was pretextual. | Defendants contend the termination was for legitimate performance reasons and not pregnancy-related. | No genuine issue of material fact on pretext; summary judgment granted for Defendants. |
| Whether Plaintiff waived or pursued a hostile work environment claim | Plaintiff asserted a hostile environment claim in complaint and opposition. | Waived due to undeveloped argument in opposition. | Hostile work environment claim dismissed as waived. |
| Whether local Puerto Rico law claims should be adjudicated given federal claims dismissal | Claims arise from discriminatory acts; supplemental jurisdiction should apply. | Local claims fail for lack of evidence of pregnancy discrimination. | Local law claims dismissed; discretionary retention of supplemental jurisdiction exercised. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifting for summary judgment; movant must show lack of evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issues of material fact; credibility not weighed at summary judgment)
- Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2000) (pretext shown by weaknesses and inconsistencies in employer's reasons)
- Martinez-Burgos v. Guayama Corp., 656 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2011) (PDA and Title VII; prima facie and pretext framework)
- Colantuoni v. Alfred Calcagni & Sons, Inc., 44 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994) (sham affidavit rule; cannot contradict past deposition testimony)
- Orta-Castro v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Quimica P.R., Inc., 447 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2006) (exclusion of sworn later testimony that contradicts deposition testimony)