Planadeball v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.
793 F.3d 169
1st Cir.2015Background
- Planadeball, born in Puerto Rico, is Hispanic and was hired by Wyndham in 2009 as a sales rep in Orlando; she was transferred to Wyndham Río Mar in Puerto Rico in 2010 and supervised by Ángelo Sánchez and later Shawyn Maley; Maley made numerous derogatory comments about Puerto Ricans and African-Americans and engaged in harassment of female coworkers; Planadeball complained to Maley and Wieczerzak in early 2011 and to Lama/Olmo in May 2011 but feared HR retaliation and did not file then; Planadeball returned from gallbladder surgery in March–April 2011 to a hostile environment including being yelled at and threatened by Maley; a $4,000 commission chargeback occurred in April 2011 following a cancelled $40,000 sale, with corporate settling the client but not Planadeball; in May 2011, Planadeball and others filed discrimination charges with Puerto Rico’s Anti-Discrimination Unit, and Maley was suspended but not disciplined; Maley was transferred out of Planadeball’s office in May 2011, Estes became her new supervisor in 2012, and Planadeball filed a federal Title VII retaliation and Puerto Rico law claim in 2012; Wyndham moved for summary judgment in April 2013, which the magistrate recommended and the district court adopted; Planadeball appeals, arguing retaliation for protected conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Planadeball showed a prima facie retaliation case | Planadeball protects conduct; protected acts linked to adverse actions | Insufficient nexus and protected conduct not clearly established | Assumed protected conduct; failure on nexus/causation for most actions |
| Whether the $4,000 chargeback was causally linked to protected conduct | Temporal proximity suggests retaliation | No evidence decisionmaker knew of protected conduct | No prima facie causation established |
| Whether Estes’s conduct constitutes a material adverse action tied to protected conduct | Estes's conduct harmed Planadeball and followed protected complaints | Estes had no knowledge of protected activity | No causal link; not proven retaliation |
| Whether Maley’s threats to fire Planadeball were a material adverse action and pretext exists | Threats could dissuade a charge of discrimination; temporal proximity shows nexus | Threats tied to performance; timing reasonable; no pretext shown | Threats could be material adverse action, but Plaintiff failed to show pretext; claim fails |
| Whether Planadeball showed pretext for unlawful retaliation | Temporal proximity and retaliatory motive | No additional evidence of retaliation; timing explained by performance | Plaintiff failed to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation injuries standard; not all actions are adverse for Title VII)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Medina-Rivera v. MVM, Inc., 713 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2013) (prima facie elements and causation in retaliation)
- Fantini v. Salem State Coll., 557 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (defines protected conduct to include informal complaints)
- Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2008) (contextual look at what constitutes material adversity)
- Mariani-Colón v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 511 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 2007) (causal proximity sufficiency in prima facie case when timing fits)
- Sánchez-Rodríguez v. AT&T Mobility P.R., Inc., 673 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (timing and causation in retaliation case at prima facie stage)
- Velazquez-Ortiz v. Vilsack, 657 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2011) (causal nexus and proximity considerations)