Petrocelli, Luz v. T Mobile Puerto Rico
KLAN202500266
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 22, 2025Background
- Luz Petrocelli was employed as a Mobile Expert with T-Mobile Puerto Rico, with prior experience in retail and knowledge that positions required variable hours and locations.
- Petrocelli requested multiple schedule adjustments for personal and family reasons across her employment, most of which were granted, except for a final request for three Saturdays off per month, which was denied due to operational needs.
- Following the denial and other concerns, including one comment related to her national origin and an alleged discriminatory relocation while pregnant, Petrocelli resigned, claiming constructive dismissal based on discrimination (pregnancy, sex, national origin) and retaliation for asserting her rights.
- T-Mobile argued that schedule changes were business-driven, that all reasonable accommodations were provided, and Petrocelli's resignation was voluntary.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to T-Mobile, finding no evidence of discriminatory conduct or retaliation, and that the plaintiff failed procedural requirements in contesting the facts. Petrocelli appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (Pregnancy, Sex) | Denied requested accommodation and relocation was motivated by discrimination | Relocation and denial were for legitimate business reasons; accommodations mostly granted | No evidence of discriminatory motive; denial was operationally justified |
| Discrimination (National Origin) | Supervisor made one biased comment and denied requests allegedly based on national origin | No pattern or substantive acts of bias; accommodations unrelated to origin | Single comment insufficient for claim; no actionable discrimination found |
| Retaliation | Adverse actions, including denial of requests, due to complaints and legal action | Actions based on business need; no evidence of retaliation following complaints/litigation | No evidence of retaliation presented; claim denied |
| Constructive Dismissal | Conditions forced resignation (denied requests, relocation, alleged bias) | Resignation was voluntary; circumstances not egregious or intolerable | Plaintiff failed to show resignation was only reasonable option; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Meléndez González v. M. Cuebas, 193 DPR 100 (P.R. 2015) (outlines summary judgment requirements and judicial review)
- SLG Zapata-Rivera v. J.F. Montalvo, 189 DPR 414 (P.R. 2013) (procedural rules for summary judgment opposition)
- Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 DPR 157 (P.R. 1994) (seriousness required for constructive dismissal; objective standard)
- Ramírez Ferrer v. Conagra Foods PR, 175 DPR 799 (P.R. 2009) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Rivera Águila v. K-Mart de PR, 123 DPR 599 (P.R. 1942) (legal standards for pregnancy discrimination claims)