Meléndez Rivera v. Corporación del Pondo del Seguro del Estado
195 P.R. Dec. 300
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2016Background
- In 2007 Pablo Meléndez Rivera filed a discrimination complaint (age) with the Department of Labor’s Unidad Antidiscrimen; the Unit issued a “no probable cause” determination on Dec. 4, 2008.
- Meléndez timely sought reconsideration before the Secretary, who on May 18, 2010 granted reconsideration and referred the case to the Department’s Negociado de Asuntos Legales.
- The Negociado filed a first complaint (Primera Querella) in trial court on May 19, 2011; it was dismissed without prejudice for defective service.
- The Negociado filed a second complaint (Segunda Querella) on Apr. 20, 2012; the CFSE moved to dismiss as time-barred, arguing the prescriptive period ran from the Unit’s original Dec. 4, 2008 determination (or from the Secretary’s May 18, 2010 order).
- Trial court denied dismissal; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the prescriptive period began when the Secretary granted reconsideration (May 18, 2010) and that the first complaint was one day late, so the second complaint was prescribed. The Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: the one-year prescriptive period remains suspended while agency proceedings (including pending reconsideration) continue and begins to run only when the Secretary notifies his determination; Meléndez’s first complaint was filed one day late and thus did not interrupt the prescriptive period, so the second complaint is time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 1-year prescriptive period for a Ley Núm. 100 judicial action begin after an agency investigation? | Period remains suspended while the Secretary’s reconsideration and referral to Negociado are pending; it restarts only after Secretary’s referral triggers filing window. | Period restarts either at Unit’s original determination date or at Secretary’s grant-of-reconsideration date; agency processes do not indefinitely suspend time. | The one-year period is suspended (frozen) while the Unit’s proceedings — including a pending reconsideration before the Secretary — continue; it begins to run when the Secretary notifies his determination and refers the case. |
| Does filing a tardy first complaint interrupt the prescriptive period? | First complaint (filed May 19, 2011) should have interrupted or tolled the period. | The first complaint was filed after the one-year window expired and therefore did not interrupt the period. | The first complaint was filed one day after the Secretary’s May 18, 2010 notification window expired, so it did not interrupt the prescriptive period. |
| Effect of Secretary’s reconsideration decision on when agency proceedings are "terminated" for restart of prescription | A Secretary’s grant of reconsideration and referral to Negociado keeps agency proceedings ongoing until Secretary’s final notice; prescription remains frozen until that notice. | Secretary’s action may mark termination and start prescription; the Unit’s original determination may be the operative date. | The Secretary’s disposition concludes the agency process for purposes of prescription; while reconsideration is pending prescription stays frozen until the Secretary notifies his decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olmo v. Young & Rubicam of P.R., Inc., 110 DPR 740 (recognizing one-year prescriptive period for Ley Núm. 100 claims)
- Srio. del Trabajo v. F.H. Co., Inc., 116 DPR 823 (holding Unit proceedings interrupt/toll prescriptive period)
- Matos Motero v. Roche Products, Inc., 132 DPR 470 (applying tolling/suspension rule to EEOC filings and Unit equivalence)
- Suárez v. The Bankers Club of P.R., Inc., 143 DPR 58 (confirming suspension of prescription while Unit processes complaints)
- Suárez Ruiz v. Figueroa Colón, 145 DPR 142 (reiterating that prescription resumes after Unit proceedings terminate)
- S.L.G. Serrano-Báez v. Foot Locker, 182 DPR 824 (again confirming suspension while Unit proceedings continue)
- Accurate Sols. v. Heritage Environmental, 193 DPR 423 (pleading/ dismissal standards referenced)