Rivera-Rivera v. Medina & Medina, Inc.
229 F. Supp. 3d 117
D.P.R.2017Background
- Rivera, hired in 2006 at age 46, worked at Medina & Medina and received regular raises and annual bonuses until her 2013 resignation; she filed an EEOC charge on Aug. 20, 2013 and a right-to-sue in Sept. 2013.
- Rivera sued under the ADEA, Title VII, and Puerto Rico statutes alleging age- and sex-based pay discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation after filing the EEOC charge, and constructive discharge; she also asserted supplemental Puerto Rico claims including Law 100, Law 69, Law 115, and Law 80.
- Defendant produced sworn evidence (manager declaration and W-2s) showing Rivera was the second-highest paid employee from 2008 until resignation, undermining her pay-disparity claim.
- Rivera relied primarily on a post-discovery affidavit repeating complaint allegations: frequent derogatory age/gender remarks, yelling and intimidating gestures, false accusations of fraud, reassignment to clerical duties, and intensified harassment after the EEOC filing.
- The court found Rivera’s affidavit and other testimony to be conclusory, lacking specifics (dates, exact words, contextual facts, or comparators), and in part hearsay; it concluded the record could not support prima facie discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, or constructive discharge claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate pay (ADEA/Title VII) | Rivera: younger males earned more; bonuses discriminatorily awarded | Medina: payroll records and manager declaration show Rivera was second-highest paid; plaintiff’s evidence is hearsay | Favor Medina — pay claim dismissed (plaintiff’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay) |
| Hostile work environment (ADEA/Title VII) | Rivera: daily derogatory age/sex comments, yelling, threats, fraud accusations created abusive workplace | Medina: allegations are vague, conclusory, and lack objective severity or specificity | Favor Medina — hostile-environment claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Retaliation / constructive discharge | Rivera: EEOC filing led to intensified threats, demotion to clerical duties, medical leave, and forced resignation | Medina: no materially adverse action proven; alleged conduct predated EEOC charge and statements are conclusory | Favor Medina — retaliation and constructive discharge claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Supplemental Puerto Rico claims (Laws 100, 69, 115, 80, 17) | Rivera: state-law analogues to federal claims; Law 80 for constructive discharge | Medina: federal record insufficient; Law 80 requires involuntary resignation proof | Favor Medina — Puerto Rico claims dismissed (court exercises supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses on merits; Law 17 dismissed sua sponte) |
Key Cases Cited
- Flood v. Bank of Am. Corp., 780 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (summary-judgment standard explained)
- Casas Office Machs., Inc. v. Mita Copystar Am., Inc., 42 F.3d 668 (1st Cir.) (courts may not weigh evidence at summary judgment)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S.) (resolve reasonable inferences for nonmovant at summary judgment)
- Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46 (1st Cir.) (inadmissible hearsay cannot be relied on at summary judgment)
- Colón-Fontánez v. Municipality of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.) (hostile work environment standard)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (harassment must be objectively and subjectively offensive)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S.) (retaliation requires materially adverse action that would deter reasonable worker)
- Velázquez-García v. Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc., 473 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.) (affidavits must provide specific factual information based on personal knowledge)
- Escribano-Reyes v. Prof'l Hepa Certificate Corp., 817 F.3d 380 (1st Cir.) (sham-affidavit doctrine and limits on post-discovery affidavits)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S.) (harassment standard and avoiding a workplace civility code)