Rodriguez-Severino v. UTC Aerospace Systems, 52 F.4th 448

Background:

Rodríguez-Severino was an EH&S specialist at UTC's Santa Isabel plant; at a March 2016 training a contractor made a sexually explicit joke and his supervisor, Kenneth Cariño, allegedly joined in.
Rodríguez-Severino filed a confidential ombudsman complaint; HR investigated without identifying the complainant and cleared Cariño. He later disclosed the ombudsman complaint to HR in June 2016.
Rodríguez-Severino filed multiple administrative charges (three EEOC charges and a VETS/USERRA charge) alleging discrimination and retaliation; UTC credits several corrective actions and performance concerns pre- and post-dating the complaints.
UTC moved for summary judgment; the district court found Rodríguez-Severino’s Local Rule 56 opposition procedurally deficient, deemed UTC’s statement of material facts admitted, and granted summary judgment dismissing Title VII and Law 115 retaliation claims.
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion in deeming UTC’s facts admitted, held Cariño was unaware of the ombudsman complaint before November 2016 (so earlier acts could not be retaliatory), and concluded post-November 2016 conduct did not amount to materially adverse employment actions nor did plaintiff rebut UTC’s nonretaliatory explanations.
The court noted that unsworn EEOC statements under penalty of perjury are admissible, but any district-court error in discounting them was harmless because plaintiff still failed to raise a genuine issue on retaliation.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by deeming UTC's statement of facts admitted under D.P.R. Civ. R. 56	Rodríguez-Severino says he properly controverted UTC's facts and cited his EEOC statements (made under penalty of perjury)	UTC says plaintiff's responses were procedurally noncompliant, speculative, and often unsupported by specific citations	No abuse of discretion; court properly deemed UTC's facts admitted though its total discounting of EEOC statements was harmless error
Whether Cariño knew of the confidential ombudsman complaint before Nov 2016 (causation for retaliation)	Plaintiff contends circumstantial inferences and investigation make it likely Cariño knew earlier	UTC shows confidentiality, plaintiff did not tell coworkers, and he only revealed filing to HR in June; no proof Cariño learned earlier	Court held Cariño did not know of the complaint until plaintiff filed the first EEOC charge in Nov 2016; pre-Nov 2016 acts cannot be retaliation
Whether the challenged actions (shift assignment, exclusion from events, treatment, transfer to OPEX) were materially adverse employment actions	Plaintiff contends assignment to third shift, exclusion and transfer harmed career and training opportunities and were adverse	UTC says actions lacked tangible harm, were explained by seniority/performance, and transfer maintained salary/benefits	Held not materially adverse; no tangible consequences shown and actions were corrective/legitimate, so no prima facie retaliation established
Whether plaintiff rebutted UTC's legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (pretext)	Plaintiff argues circumstantial evidence and timing show pretext	UTC articulated nonretaliatory reasons (performance, scheduling, seniority); plaintiff offered only conclusory claims	Held plaintiff failed to rebut UTC's explanations; no pretext shown; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (discusses credibility of interested witnesses and evidence to consider at summary judgment)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defines "materially adverse" action in retaliation context)
Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (endorses Local Rule 56 anti-ferret approach)
Tropigas de P.R., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 637 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2011) (Local Rule 56 serves Rule 56; focus on facts not argument)
Dennis v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 549 F.3d 851 (1st Cir. 2008) (interested-party testimony may be credited at summary judgment if uncontradicted)
Goldman v. Medfit Int'l, Inc., 982 F.2d 686 (1st Cir. 1993) (unsworn statements under penalty of perjury admissible in lieu of affidavits)
Ramírez Rodríguez v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 425 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005) (unsworn statements under § 1746 may be used at summary judgment)
Delaney v. Town of Abington, 890 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (retaliation requires defendant's knowledge of protected activity)
Planadeball v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 793 F.3d 169 (1st Cir. 2015) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)