252 F. Supp. 3d 111
D.P.R.2017Background
- Vazquez sued Commo-LoCo for disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA, Title VII, and Puerto Rico Law 44; all claims were previously dismissed except the Law 44 failure-to-accommodate claim.
- Commo-LoCo moved for summary judgment solely on the remaining Law 44 claim, arguing it is time-barred; Vazquez opposed arguing tolling by an ADU filing and asserting the court should not consider a second summary-judgment motion.
- Vazquez filed an ADU charge on September 1, 2010 alleging disability discrimination and requesting Commo-LoCo to "cease and desist."
- Vazquez alleges Commo-LoCo denied her requested reasonable accommodation on August 24, 2010; the complaint was filed July 26, 2012.
- Law 44 carries a one-year statute of limitations; tolling may occur via a matching ADU administrative filing or under Puerto Rico’s insanity tolling doctrine (Law 40) if plaintiff is incapable of understanding rights.
- The court allowed the second summary-judgment motion, held the ADU filing did not toll the limitations period because it sought different relief, and found Vazquez failed to prove insanity-based tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Commo-LoCo’s second motion for summary judgment procedurally barred? | Court should not allow second motion; prior orders resolved Law 44 issues. | Motion is permitted; prior order explicitly left statute-of-limitations issue open. | Allowed Commo-LoCo’s second summary-judgment motion. |
| Did Vazquez’s ADU charge toll the 1-year Law 44 limitations period? | ADU filing for discrimination/failure-to-accommodate tolled limitations. | ADU filing did not request the same relief as the lawsuit, so no tolling. | ADU filing did not toll the statute of limitations. |
| When did the Law 44 limitations period accrue? | Accrual begins when plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury. | Same. | Court held accrual occurred Aug 25, 2010; limitations expired Aug 25, 2011. |
| Is tolling available under Puerto Rico’s insanity standard (Law 40)? | Vazquez’s depression and pain rendered her incapable of pursuing claims. | Vazquez has not shown incapacity to comprehend rights or manage affairs. | Vazquez failed to meet the insanity standard; no tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez-Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d 91 (1st Cir.) (federal accrual rule: limitations run when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Riofrio Anda v. Ralston Purina Co., 959 F.2d 1149 (1st Cir.) (administrative charge must present same claim/relief to toll limitations)
- Benitez-Pons v. Commonwealth of P.R., 136 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.) (state limitations period applied to Puerto Rico employment claims)
- Ruiz-Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (Law 44 as Puerto Rico analogue to the ADA)
- Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (issues raised perfunctorily are waived)
- Gonzalez-Garcia v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 214 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D.P.R.) (limitations timing one day after accrual)
- Toledo-Colon v. P.R., 812 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.P.R.) (one-year statute of limitations under Law 44)