992 F.3d 12
1st Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs William Puig (57) and Hernan Méndez (48) were Puerto Rico-based Diabetes Care Specialist IIIs for Novo Nordisk; a global reorganization eliminated the Puerto Rico district (14 DCS positions) and created three new DCS roles reporting to the South Miami district.
- Novo Nordisk notified affected employees on Oct. 24, 2016, encouraged applications to open positions, and conducted interviews; Puig and Méndez interviewed and received "Meets Expectations" ratings, while three hires received "Exceeds Expectations."
- Novo Nordisk terminated plaintiffs effective Nov. 18, 2016, enclosed a release offering additional benefits but paid Law 80 severance amounts ($82,137.27 to Puig; $67,845.96 to Méndez) regardless of signing.
- Plaintiffs sued under the ADEA, COBRA, Puerto Rico Law 100 (age discrimination), Law 80 (unjust dismissal/mesada), and a derivative tort claim; district court granted summary judgment for Novo Nordisk on all claims; plaintiffs appealed only the Law 100 and Law 80 rulings.
- First Circuit assumed without deciding the employer bore the burden on Law 100 but held the record lacked any admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could find age discrimination; it also held plaintiffs failed to show Law 80 underpayment and affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs established age discrimination under Puerto Rico Law 100 | Puig points to interviewer remarks about needing "energy," pretextual hires, and asserted biases; Méndez argues disparate treatment | Selections based on interview performance; chosen candidates were not significantly younger; remarks relate to job demands not age | No age-discrimination triable issue; summary judgment for Novo Nordisk |
| Whether the selection process was predetermined (pretext) | Puig relies on an attachment to termination letters and hearsay suggesting hires were decided before interviews | Attachment reads against Puig's interpretation; alleged statements are hearsay and inadmissible at summary judgment | No admissible evidence of predetermination; summary judgment for Novo Nordisk |
| Whether employer's evaluation criteria show unlawful motive | Puig contends Novo Nordisk undervalued experience/performance and misapplied criteria | Employer had facially legitimate, nondiscriminatory criteria; court will not second-guess business judgments | Employer's legitimate reasons defeat inference of age bias; summary judgment for Novo Nordisk |
| Whether Novo Nordisk failed to pay Law 80 severance (mesada) properly | Plaintiffs claim payments were too small (Méndez identifies a different target amount) | Novo Nordisk contends it paid Law 80 amounts shown; plaintiffs offered no record calculation or legal authority to treat other benefits as "salary" | Plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence/calculation; Law 80 claim waived/unsupported; summary judgment for Novo Nordisk |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (replacement by an insignificantly younger worker does not permit an inference of age discrimination)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (courts may not act as super personnel departments reviewing employer business judgments)
- Cardona-Jimenez v. Bancomercio de P.R., 174 F.3d 36 (employer entitled to judgment when no reasonable jury could find discharge due to age)
- Woodward v. Emulex Corp., 714 F.3d 632 ("re-energize"/"energy" comments do not necessarily show age animus)
- Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 812 F.3d 195 (Law 80 requires seniority preference in restructuring and the mesada framework)
- Rodriguez v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 816 F.2d 24 (severance is the exclusive remedy under Law 80; employer may discharge if willing to pay)
- Otero-Burgos v. Inter Am. Univ., 558 F.3d 1 (Law 80 mesada entitlement and calculation principles)
- Zannino v. United States, 895 F.2d 1 (issues not developed on appeal may be treated as waived)