Rivera-Melendez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19398
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Rivera, a long‑time Pfizer employee and U.S. Naval Reservist, was serving active duty from Dec. 2008–Oct. 2009 when Pfizer restructured its API department and replaced his API Group Leader role with API Team Leader (exempt) and API Service Coordinator (non‑exempt).
- Seven API Team Leader positions were posted before Rivera returned; six former Group Leaders (none meeting original degree requirement) and one Senior Operator filled them.
- Upon return, Rivera was reinstated but assigned to special tasks (reduced responsibilities) because his old Group Leader role had been eliminated; he later was appointed to API Service Coordinator (same pay/benefits but fewer duties).
- Rivera sued under USERRA alleging entitlement to the escalator position (API Team Leader) and other USERRA violations; district court granted summary judgment to Pfizer on the reinstatement claim, holding the escalator principle applied only to automatic/seniority promotions.
- On appeal, Rivera and the United States (amicus) argued the escalator principle and the "reasonable certainty" test apply to discretionary (non‑automatic) promotions; the First Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding the district court used the wrong legal standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USERRA's escalator principle and reasonable‑certainty test apply to discretionary (non‑automatic) promotions | Rivera: escalator/reasonable‑certainty apply regardless of whether promotion is labeled discretionary; the proper inquiry is whether it was reasonably certain he would have attained the promotion absent service | Pfizer: escalator applies only to automatic/seniority promotions; discretionary promotions are outside USERRA's escalator rule | The First Circuit: reversed — the escalator principle and reasonable‑certainty test apply to both automatic and discretionary promotions; remanded for factual inquiry |
| Whether district court properly applied the reasonable‑certainty test on the record | Rivera: district court misapplied law and did not assess reasonable‑certainty under the correct standard; factual issues remain | Pfizer: district court correctly disposed as a matter of law based on discretion label | Held: district court erred by not applying the correct standard; remand for district court to determine if genuine factual disputes exist about reasonable certainty |
| Proper weight of Department of Labor regulations and commentary in interpreting USERRA | Rivera/United States: DOL regs incorporate reasonable‑certainty test for discretionary promotions and merit deference | Pfizer: DOL commentary does not override precedent limiting escalator to seniority promotions | Held: Court gives substantial deference to DOL interpretation; regs and commentary support applying reasonable‑certainty to discretionary promotions |
| Burden on employer for changed‑circumstances defense on remand | Rivera: employer bears burden to prove affirmative changed‑circumstances defense | Pfizer: (implied) employer defenses could justify denial | Held: employer bears burden to prove changed‑circumstances defense; district court should consider this on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- McKinney v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 357 U.S. 265 (holding a veteran is not entitled to discretionary promotions that depend on employer's exercise of discretion)
- Tilton v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 376 U.S. 169 (adopting the reasonable‑certainty standard for seniority/advancement claims)
- Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275 (statutes protecting servicemembers construed liberally in their favor)
- Serricchio v. Wachovia Sec. LLC, 658 F.3d 169 (discussing equitable remedies under USERRA)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (deference to agency's interpretation of its own regulations)