Medina-Rivera v. MVM, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7257
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Medina, a part-time on-call detention officer for MVM starting Jan 2008, had no set schedule and was low on seniority; she began afternoon classes in Aug 2008.
- She reported that an ICE agent harassed her by phone; Velázquez told her he could not remove the number due to policy, and Navarro would be consulted.
- On Oct 23, 2008, Ortiz allegedly assaulted Medina at a hotel; Navarro noted the incident and Ortiz was removed from Medina’s office by Oct 31.
- Medina pursued administrative remedies, then, with husband Cajigas and their conjugal partnership, filed Title VII claims alleging sex discrimination and retaliation.
- During a 40-hour refresher training in Dec 2008, trainer Pizarro pressured Medina to define sexual harassment, prompting further complaint.
- A district judge granted summary judgment for MVM on all Title VII claims, and the First Circuit reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Medina proved a sex-discrimination claim | Medina argues MVM knew or should have known of harassment and failed to act. | Ortiz was not an MVM employee; MVM had no duty to monitor nonemployee harassment beyond policy. | No genuine dispute; no Title VII sex-discrimination shown. |
| Whether Medina proved a retaliation claim | MVM retaliated after she complained, e.g., suspension, reduced hours, humiliating seminar. | No material adverse action proven; record shows hours fluctuated and claimed suspensions were contradicted by evidence. | No material adverse action established; retaliation claim fails. |
| Whether Cajigas's claims are properly derivative and preservable | Cajigas's claims should be adjudicated with Medina's as co-plaintiffs. | Cajigas's arguments are derivative and inadequately developed and thus waived. | Cajigas's claims waived/undercut; not considered on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (supervisor harassment as hostile environment)
- Rodríguez-Hernández v. Miranda-Vélez, 132 F.3d 848 (1st Cir. 1998) (employer liability for known harassment)
- Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting known standard for employer liability)
- Ahern v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (summary-judgment burden in discrimination cases)
- Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1990) (purpose and extent of inference in summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (incredible or blatantly contradicted facts not accepted)
- Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I., 373 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard and inference limits)
- Casas Office Machs., Inc. v. Mita Copystar Am., Inc., 42 F.3d 668 (1st Cir. 1994) (evidentiary standards in summary judgment)