799 F. Supp. 2d 120
D.P.R.2011Background
- Cardona filed suit May 1, 2010, alleging disability discrimination/retaliation against UPR and individual Defendants under ADA Title V, Title I, Section 1983, Title VII, and Law 44.
- Alleged unsafe working conditions, mismanagement, and retaliation included withheld materials, denied equipment/vehicles, and coercive behavior by supervisors Ruiz and Rodriguez.
- Cardona claimed lack of accommodations after Dr. Franco advised accommodations, and that complaints to UPR and the Affirmative Action Office were ignored.
- Plaintiff resigned from supervision to a non-supervisory role, claiming health deterioration and emotional distress tied to discriminatory conditions.
- UPR moved to dismiss arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity; individuals argued immunity and lack of personal liability; court issued an Amended Omnibus Opinion and Order.
- Motion for reconsideration followed contending broader dismissals were improper; court reserved ruling on some claims and granted limited amendment opportunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA Title V retaliation claims survive Eleventh Amendment immunity | Cardona argues Title V claims independent of Title I | UPR argues immunity bars Title I-based monetary relief; Title V claims must arise from underlying Title I/II/III | Title V claims cannot stand for monetary relief; injunctive relief remains viable; underlying Title I governs immunity |
| Whether ADA claims against the UPR and individuals survive | ADA claims should proceed; not barred by immunity | Eleventh Amendment immunity shields the state and its instrumentality; no personal liability under ADA against individuals | ADA claims for monetary relief against UPR dismissed; injunctive relief allowed; individual ADA claims dismissed in both capacities |
| Whether Title VII claims against individual Defendants survive | Title VII liability extends to individuals | Individual liability under Title VII does not exist | Title VII claims against individual Defendants dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Section 1983 claims against official-capacity Defendants survive | Section 1983 rights alleged against state officials | Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity damages; no individual relief | Section 1983 official-capacity claims dismissed with prejudice; only prospective relief against UPR officials possible under Ex Parte Young |
| Whether Law 44 claims against individual Defendants survive | Law 44 mirrors ADA; individuals liable | No individual liability under Law 44 | Law 44 claims against individuals dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Collazo-Rosado v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 775 F.Supp.2d 376 (D.P.R.2011) (Title V retaliation tied to underlying Title I/II/III claims; sovereign immunity governs)
- Irizarry-Mora v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 647 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.2011) (Two-stage framework for arm-of-the-state; UPR afforded Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Vizcarrondo v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of P.R., 139 F.Supp.2d 198 (D.P.R.2001) (Arms-of-the-state immunity, scope of official-capacity claims)
- Toledo v. Sánchez, 454 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.2006) (Affirms Eleventh Amendment immunities for state entities)
- Panzardi-Santiago v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 200 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.P.R.2002) (Eleventh Amendment immunity for state instrumentality)
- Culebras Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera Rios, 813 F.2d 516 (1st Cir.1987) (Official-capacity suit barred from damages; Eleventh Amendment)
- Sánchez Barreto v. Swiss Just De P.R., Inc., 2003 WL 23336311 (P.R. Cir. 2003) (Law 44 lacks individual liability; courts avoid novel liability)