Perez-Abreu v. Metropol Hato Rey LLC
5f4th89
| 1st Cir. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff Francisco Pérez sued his employer, Metropol Hato Rey, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and Puerto Rico Law 100 based on (a) a 2010 reduction in hours from 40 to 35 and (b) a 2013 reassignment to "as-needed" tables that reduced his income.
- Pérez did not file an EEOC or ADU charge himself; he sought to "piggyback" on timely EEOC/ADU charges and a subsequent suit filed by co-worker Juan Santiago-Del Valle.
- The Metropol moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the district court gave Pérez leave to amend but he did not allege exhaustion or an equitable exception.
- The district court applied a version of the single-filing rule requiring the underlying EEOC charge to give notice of class- or company-wide discrimination and found Del Valle’s charge lacked such notice; it dismissed Pérez’s ADEA claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over his Puerto Rico claims.
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed, explaining Pérez neither showed the Del Valle charge gave notice of broader discrimination nor joined Del Valle’s suit, filed his own action more than 90 days after the EEOC dismissal on which he sought to rely, and failed to amend his complaint to plead exhaustion or an equitable excuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to apply the single-filing ("piggyback") rule to excuse Pérez's failure to file his own EEOC charge | Pérez: adopt the broad Tolliver test — piggybacking permitted if claims arise from same circumstances/timeframe | Metropol: plaintiff must satisfy exhaustion; Del Valle's charge gave no notice of class-wide harm | Court: declined to adopt a broad rule that would excuse Pérez's procedural failings and affirmed dismissal |
| What test governs piggybacking (broad same-circumstances test vs narrower class-wide/representative notice) | Pérez: the broadest Tolliver test should apply | Metropol: narrower test requiring class-wide allegation or notice is necessary to satisfy conciliation/notice purposes | Court: declined to adopt the broad test here and endorsed scrutiny of whether EEOC charge gave notice of broader discrimination |
| Whether an ADEA non-exhausting plaintiff may file an independent suit piggybacking on another's charge | Pérez: under Tolliver, ADEA plaintiffs need not join co-worker’s suit and may file separately | Metropol: procedural and notice concerns counsel against allowing an independent suit to circumvent exhaustion | Court: noted Tolliver’s position but refused to apply it to excuse Pérez’s separate, untimely suit in these circumstances |
| Whether failure to plead exhaustion or an equitable exception warranted dismissal | Pérez: argued equitable exception should apply | Metropol: procedural omission and lack of timely administrative filing justify dismissal | Court: dismissal affirmed—Pérez failed to plead exhaustion or equitable excuse and did not amend when given leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolliver v. Xerox Corp., 918 F.2d 1052 (2d Cir. 1990) (articulates three variants of the single-filing/piggyback rule)
- Greene v. City of Boston, 204 F. Supp. 2d 239 (D. Mass. 2002) (endorses requirement that EEOC charge indicate class- or group-wide discrimination)
- Howlett v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 49 F.3d 189 (6th Cir. 1995) (explains single-filing rule allows timely charge by one plaintiff to satisfy others in same action)
- Whalen v. W.R. Grace & Co., 56 F.3d 504 (3d Cir. 1995) (rejects Tolliver to the extent it permits piggybacking absent notice of class-wide discrimination)
- Anderson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 852 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir. 1988) (holds the underlying charge must allege class-wide discrimination to satisfy notice/conciliation goals)
- Basch v. Ground Round, Inc., 139 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998) (First Circuit discussion of single-filing doctrine without full adoption)
- Martínez-Rivera v. Puerto Rico, 812 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2016) (confirms ADEA requires administrative exhaustion before suit)