Román-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority
655 F.3d 43
1st Cir.2011Background
- Román, a PREPA employee with schizophrenia for over two decades, alleged disability discrimination and retaliation related to union activity.
- Starting in 2005, his superiors allegedly harassed him, disciplined him, and sought actions against him, including a coerced transfer and unequal treatment.
- In 2006, PREPA barred Román from work following psychiatric input; later reports found him fit to work, but he remained out and underwent repeated evaluations.
- He was eventually taken off PREPA payroll in 2007, with competing evidence about his employment status; supervisors allegedly removed his belongings and reassigned his tools.
- Román filed a complaint with the EEOC and then suit asserting ADA, Title VII, §1983, and Puerto Rico civil-code claims; the district court dismissed federal claims with prejudice.
- The First Circuit affirmed most dismissals but vacated the district court’s dismissal of the ADA claim against PREPA and of the pendent Commonwealth claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individuals can be liable under Title I of the ADA | Román argues Vélez and Renta liable as individuals. | Vélez and Renta contend individuals cannot be liable under Title I ADA. | No individual liability under Title I ADA. |
| Whether Román plausibly states an ADA disability claim based on being regarded as disabled | Román alleges the defendants regarded him as disabled, causing adverse action. | Defendants argue insufficient pleading of a regarded-as disability and lack of substantial limitation. | Plaintiff sufficiently pleads a 'regarded as' claim; survives motion to dismiss. |
| Whether Román failed to plead a disability under the ADA's other definitions | Román contends schizophrenia substantially limited major life activities or he has a record of impairment. | Defendants contend no substantial limitation or record of impairment is pleaded. | Plaintiff fails under first two definitions but survives under regarded-as theory. |
| Whether §1983 claims were adequately pleaded and actionable | Román asserts violations of constitutional rights tied to disability and due process. | Defendants argue lack of specific right violation and failure to plead due process. | Section 1983 claim dismissed for lack of specificity and independent constitutional violation basis. |
| Whether the district court erred in declining jurisdiction over Commonwealth claims | Commonwealth claims should be allowed to proceed alongside ADA claim. | Without surviving federal claims, supplemental jurisdiction over Commonwealth claims is inappropriate. | Court vacates dismissal of Commonwealth claims and ADA claim against PREPA; declines to exercise jurisdiction without federal claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; complaint must plead plausible claims)
- Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008) (ADA disability definitions and standing on 'regarded as' claims)
- Fantini v. Salem State Coll., 557 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (no individual liability under Title VII; ADA parallel reasoning)
- Sepúlveda-Villarini v. Dep't of Educ. of Puerto Rico, 628 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (pleading standard for public claims and relation to due process)
- Aponte-Rosario v. Acevedo-Vilá, 617 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (due process requirement citing notice and hearing standards)
- McCloskey v. Mueller, 446 F.3d 262 (1st Cir. 2006) (treatment of Rule 12(b) standards on review)