Ramos Jordan, Gloribel v. Quest Diagnostics of Puerto Rico, Inc.
KLCE202300817
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Dec 20, 2023Background
- Gloribel Ramos Jordán was suspended and later terminated from employment at Quest Diagnostics in April 2019 after over 14 years of service.
- Ramos filed administrative complaints alleging discrimination and hostile work environment due to a disability (ADA and Puerto Rico Law 44) and later claimed retaliation (Law 115) following her discharge.
- Two lawsuits were filed: an initial suit in July 2022 encompassing several causes of action, which was voluntarily dismissed, and a second suit in November 2022 on similar grounds.
- Quest Diagnostics moved to dismiss claims, arguing several causes of action were time-barred.
- The trial court partially granted voluntary dismissal, but denied dismissal on the remaining claims (ADA, Law 44, Law 115); Quest appealed, focusing on prescription issues.
Issues
| Issue | Ramos (Plaintiff) Argument | Quest (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA claim was timely filed | Actions and administrative filings tolled limitations, so claim timely. | ADA claim was filed beyond 90-day period from Right-to-Sue. | ADA claim prescribed; right to sue was not timely exercised. |
| Whether Law 44 claim was prescribed | Administrative and judicial filings interrupted limitations period. | Law 44 claim time-barred. | Law 44 claim not prescribed; proceedings continued. |
| Whether Law 115 (retaliation) claim was prescribed | Timely because of tolling caused by initial and administrative complaints. | Law 115 claim time-barred. | Law 115 claim not prescribed; proceedings continued. |
| Sufficiency of complaint under Rules 6.1/10.2 | Allegations, if true, justify a remedy. | Complaint does not state a claim for relief. | Complaint sufficient except for time-barred ADA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colón v. Lotería, 167 DPR 625 (P.R. 2006) (pleading standards for dismissal under procedural rules)
- Matos Molero v. Roche Products, Inc., 132 DPR 470 (P.R. 1993) (requirements for retaliation under Law 115)
- Vera v. Dr. Bravo, 161 DPR 308 (P.R. 2004) (prescriptive periods start when damage is known)
- Olmo v. Young & Rubicam of P.R., Inc., 110 DPR 740 (P.R. 1981) (one-year prescription applies to indemnity actions)
- García v. Darex P.R., Inc., 148 DPR 364 (P.R. 1999) (just cause and burden-shifting in wrongful discharge and retaliation)