Perez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., 656 F.3d 19

Pérez-Cordero sued Wal‑Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. and others for sex‑based discrimination under Title VII and Puerto Rico Law 100, asserting sexual harassment by supervisor Santiago and retaliation by Wal‑Mart management.
Santiago, as Team Leader of the meat department, pursued Pérez-Cordero with unsolicited advances, including public kissing and sexual innuendo, after he rejected her and after co‑workers noted her interest.
Santiago supervised Pérez-Cordero more strictly, reassigned duties, assigned him burdensome closing shifts, and criticized him publicly, following his rejection.
Pérez-Cordero reported the harassment to store management starting September 2000; he received assurances but no effective corrective action, and his working conditions deteriorated.
He filed a Department of Labor discrimination charge on October 3, 2000; Wal‑Mart learned of it in January 2001 and Santiago was transferred thereafter; Pérez-Cordero declined a later promotion offer.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; on appeal, the First Circuit vacated and remanded, ruling that genuine disputes existed regarding harassment elements and liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the harassment unwelcome and gender‑based?	Pérez-Cordero; harassment was unwelcome and linked to Santiago's gender.	Wal‑Mart argues conduct was not clearly unwelcome or gendered and not sufficiently severe.	Yes; harassment was unwelcome and gender‑based; material facts create a triable issue.
Was the harassment severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile environment?	Pérez-Cordero's evidence shows months‑long retaliation, public scolding, and coercive acts affecting conditions of employment.	District court found incidents infrequent or not sufficiently severe per factors balancing.	Yes; the record supports severe and pervasive harassment under the totality of circumstances.
Did Wal‑Mart have liability under the Faragher/Ellerth defense?	Management was aware of harassment and failed to take effective corrective action.	Employer reasonable care and plaintiff failed to utilize preventive opportunities.	No; Wal‑Mart cannot show the Faragher/Ellerth defense as a matter of law; liability established.
Is there a viable retaliation claim based on protected activity?	Escalation of harassment following complaints constitutes adverse retaliation; temporal proximity supports causation.	No sufficiently adverse action tied to protected activity proven; limited interim actions.	Yes; sufficient evidence of retaliation, including escalation after complaints, creates a triable issue.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (sex discrimination scope includes men as well as women)
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (hostile environment liability framework)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (Faragher/Ellerth defense framework for employer liability)
Forrest v. Brinker International Payroll Co., 511 F.3d 225 (1st Cir. 2007) (gender‑specific harassment and hostility can support claim)
Agusty-Reyes v. Dep't of Educ. of P.R., 601 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (six‑element framework for hostile environment and retaliation claims)
Marrero v. Goya of P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2002) (hostile environment factors and harassment proof in context)
Rosario v. Dep't of the Army, 607 F.3d 241 (1st Cir. 2010) (contextual support for recognizing non‑explicit harassment)
O'Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 2001) (consideration of non‑explicit harassment when evaluating hostile environment)