858 F. Supp. 2d 172
D.P.R.2012Background
- Plaintiff is a disabled legislative advisor alleging ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Puerto Rico law, and defamation claims arising from termination and accommodations at the Puerto Rico House of Representatives.
- Plaintiff suffered a hemorrhagic stroke at age 17 and now uses a wheelchair and motorized scooter, requiring accommodations.
- Plaintiff was employed as a legislative advisor from 2001–2009, receiving various accommodations including a laptop and accessible workspace.
- Change in administration in 2009 led to relocation, limited accommodations, and termination on at-will basis.
- Plaintiff sues for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and ancillary state-law damages, with District Court jurisdiction over federal and supplemental Puerto Rico claims.
- Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leaving only equitable relief under Title I of the ADA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process in termination | Plaintiff asserts a due process violation for termination without proper procedures. | Defendants contend Plaintiff was in a trust/confidential role with no due process rights. | Summary judgment denied for due process claim; no constitutionally protected property interest. |
| Equal protection for accommodation | Plaintiff claims discriminatory treatment due to disability. | Defendants argue no impermissible discrimination evidenced by structure of protections. | Equal protection claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | ADA claims were exhausted via EEOC/FEPA charge within relevant deadlines. | Failure to exhaust would bar suit. | ADA exhaustion satisfied; claim not barred. |
| ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate | Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate known disabilities and discriminated. | Defendants provided or attempted to provide accommodations, and termination for at-will reasons was legitimate. | Plaintiff survives on Title I ADA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate; genuine issues of material fact remain; summary judgment denied on these aspects. |
| Title V retaliation and Eleventh Amendment damages | Defendants retaliated for disability-related activity; damages sought under Title I are barred by Eleventh Amendment. | No protected activity or causal link proven; damages barred by Eleventh Amendment; injunctive relief only may remain. | Retaliation claim under Title I dismissed; monetary damages barred; injunctive relief remains a possibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact required for trial)
- Galloza v. Foy, 389 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2004) (public employees' due process protections under PR law analyzed)
- Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2006) (two-step ADA qualification analysis)
- Colon-Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011) (ADA qualification and reasonable accommodation standards applied in First Circuit)
- Bonilla v. Muebles J.J. Alvarez, Inc., 194 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 1999) (exhaustion and timing under Title VII/ADA analogue in First Circuit)
- Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (Eleventh Amendment immunity for damages under Title I of ADA)