291 F. Supp. 3d 215
D.P.R.2018Background
- Plaintiff Juan Natal (born 1957) worked for Oriental Bank since 2012 as a branch operations/servicing manager; he was suspended on September 30, 2015 for allegedly permitting tellers to accept cash tips and received a negative 2015 performance evaluation for failing to complete a training.
- Natal alleges age discrimination and failure to accommodate/ADA claims, and retaliation under the ADEA and ADA; he filed an EEOC charge on October 9, 2015 and this lawsuit followed (filed March 29, 2016).
- Natal contends supervisors made ageist remarks (e.g., called him "old man") during the suspension meeting, denied he authorized tips, sought FMLA leave and medical accommodation, and later received a written warning and a COBRA notice.
- Oriental contends the suspension, evaluation, and warning were legitimate business responses to the tips incident and performance/training issues; Oriental moved for summary judgment on all claims and sought to strike post-complaint documents Natal submitted.
- The court addressed Local Rule 56 compliance, limited consideration of improperly presented additional facts but accepted Natal’s deposition account of the suspension meeting for fairness, and struck or excluded documents that raised new post-complaint claims.
- Holding summary judgment: most federal and local claims dismissed, except Natal's ADEA and ADA retaliation claims (and their local-law counterparts under Law 115) relating to the negative 2015 evaluation survived; ADA discrimination and accommodation claims were withdrawn/dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Natal established ADEA discrimination (prima facie) | Natal argues age animus (ageist remarks at suspension) caused adverse actions (suspension, transfer, negative evaluation, warning, COBRA letter) | Oriental argues actions were nondiscriminatory responses to policy violations and performance/training failures; insufficient evidence of age-based causation | Court: GRANTED for Oriental — Natal failed to show employer did not treat age neutrally (ADEA discrimination dismissed) |
| Whether conduct created a hostile work environment under ADEA | Natal cites repeated ageist remarks, increased duties, admonishments, COBRA notice | Oriental says incidents were isolated/offhand and not severe or pervasive; Natal did not use internal reporting | Court: GRANTED for Oriental — harassment not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create hostile work environment |
| Whether Natal proved willful ADEA violation (liquidated damages) | Natal asserted willfulness | Oriental denied willfulness; absence of supporting evidence | Court: GRANTED for Oriental — Natal offered no evidence or developed argument of willfulness |
| Whether Occidental retaliated (ADEA/ADA) for protected activity | Natal claims retaliation for opposing termination of an ill subordinate, requesting accommodations/FMLA, and filing EEOC charge; the negative 2015 evaluation and suspension were retaliatory | Oriental contends timing and legitimate reasons (training noncompletion, tip incident) negate causation and show nonretaliatory bases | Court: DENIED in part — summary judgment denied as to retaliation related to the negative 2015 evaluation (sufficient temporal proximity and evidence to create triable issue); other retaliation theories (suspension re: temporal gap; transfer/warning not adverse) dismissed where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, 596 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (Local Rule 56 requires additional facts in a separate section; district court may disregard improperly submitted facts)
- Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc., 696 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2012) (district court discretion to disregard additional facts in Rule 56 responses; McDonnell Douglas framework discussion)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burdens)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (ADEA causation standard discussion; adverse action concept addressed)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation; textual comparison of statutes)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for indirect evidence discrimination claims)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (retaliation adverse-action standard: harm that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 779 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2015) (treatment of suspended employee; temporal proximity analysis)
- Gu v. Boston Police Dep’t, 312 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2002) (what constitutes materially adverse employment action)
- Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy, 877 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2017) (analysis of material change to conditions of employment)