781 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2015Background
- Jorge L. Vaello-Carmona was a long‑time Siemens employee promoted to Branch Manager in Jan. 2008, suffered a stroke in June 2008, and continued working with diminished speech/mobility.
- Siemens terminated him in Oct. 2009; after further health decline he became totally disabled and began receiving Social Security benefits in Feb. 2010.
- Vaello‑Carmona filed suit in July 2011 alleging disability and employment discrimination under Puerto Rico Law 100, Law 44, Title I of the ADA, and wrongful termination under Law 80; he died in Aug. 2011.
- His wife, two children, and estate moved to substitute as plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a); the district court denied substitution and dismissed the claims, holding the discrimination claims non‑inheritable.
- The First Circuit reviewed de novo and applied Puerto Rico law to determine survivability, vacated the dismissal, and remanded—holding Law 100, Law 44, and the ADA Title I claim inheritable under Puerto Rico law, and restoring the Law 80 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Law 100 and Law 44 claims survive plaintiff's death | Vaello‑Carmona's heirs can substitute and pursue his discrimination claims because the statutes provide monetary damages for harms suffered during the plaintiff's life | Siemens: these statutes are "very personal" and non‑transmissible; related PR precedent limits third‑party rights | Court: Law 100 and Law 44 claims are inheritable under Puerto Rico law; substitution permitted |
| Whether Title I ADA claim survives plaintiff's death | ADA damages are for harms suffered during life and thus should survive; apply Puerto Rico law here | Siemens argued against survivability (and relied on personal‑nature arguments); parties agreed to apply PR law for this question | Court: Applying Puerto Rico law, the ADA Title I claim is inheritable |
| Whether pendent Law 80 claim remains | If federal and PR discrimination claims survive, pendent state Law 80 claim should continue | District court dismissed Law 80 without prejudice after dismissing federal claims | Court: Vacated dismissal of Law 80 and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether relatives may assert independent Law 100 claims | Appellants sought substitution, not independent claims | Siemens relied on PR cases denying relatives independent Law 100 causes of action | Court: Distinguished those cases; relatives cannot assert their own Law 100 claims, but they can substitute as plaintiff to pursue the decedent's claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Medina‑Velázquez v. Hernández‑Gregorat, 767 F.3d 103 (1st Cir.) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Hoyos v. Telecorp Commc'ns, Inc., 488 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (apply local law to pendent state claims)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (U.S.) (federal survival questions and choice between federal common law and state law)
- Rederford v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 589 F.3d 30 (1st Cir.) (remedies under Title I of the ADA tied to Title VII remedies)
- Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., 521 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.) (comparison of PR Law 44 to the ADA)
- Sucesión Álvarez, 150 P.R. Dec. 252 (P.R. 2000) (Puerto Rico Supreme Court test for what claims survive death)
- Cruz Roche v. De Jesús Colón, 182 P.R. Dec. 313 (P.R. 2011) (describing Law 100 as "very personal" but distinguishable as denying third‑party independent claims)