Mojica Vargas, Lyriam Airim v. Cabrera Auto Group Inc
KLAN202400491
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Aug 23, 2024Background
- Lyriam Airim Mojica Vargas was employed by Cabrera Auto Group and related companies from December 7, 2007, until her termination on March 29, 2022.
- Mojica alleged unjustified dismissal, retaliation, and discrimination based on age and gender, after she was demoted and eventually fired, with the company citing derogatory Facebook comments directed at her supervisor.
- Mojica claimed her dismissal was retaliation for expressing disagreement regarding a job reassignment and for not participating in certain work projects.
- Cabrera Auto argued Mojica’s behavior—abusive conduct and public, denigrating comments about her supervisor—violated company policy and was the true reason for her dismissal, not any discriminatory or retaliatory motive.
- The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Cabrera Auto, finding Mojica had not presented evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on her claims; Mojica appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there unjustified dismissal? | Mojica: Dismissal was for voicing concerns about work changes, not for cause. | Cabrera: Dismissal for misconduct, violating company policy. | The dismissal was justified due to Mojica's conduct. |
| Retaliation for protected activity? | Mojica: Fired in retaliation for submitting a complaint about reassignment. | Cabrera: No protected activity; firing not related to the complaint. | No evidence showed firing was for protected activity. |
| Discrimination (age and gender)? | Mojica: Alleged others (younger, male) not punished for similar behavior; replaced by younger employees. | Cabrera: No evidence substantiates discrimination; legitimate cause for firing. | Mojica did not establish a prima facie case. |
| Propriety of summary judgment? | Mojica: Material facts in controversy; credibility should be tried. | Cabrera: No genuine dispute of material facts; summary judgment proper. | Summary judgment was appropriate; lower court affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camaleglo v. Dorado Wings, Inc., 118 DPR 20 (Puerto Rico 1986) (explains scope of summary judgment procedure)
- Vera v. Dr. Bravo, 161 DPR 308 (Puerto Rico 2004) (articulates standards for summary judgment review)
- Ortiz Ortiz v. Medtronic, 209 DPR 759 (Puerto Rico 2022) (proper burden under Ley 80 after the Labor Transformation Act)
- Segarra Rivera v. Int’l Shipping et al., 208 DPR 964 (Puerto Rico 2022) (framework for evaluating discrimination cases)
- Feliciano Martes v. Sheraton, 182 DPR 368 (Puerto Rico 2011) (elements and evidence required for retaliation claims)