Velázquez-Pérez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp.
753 F.3d 265
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Velázquez was hired and promoted to regional general manager by DDR and worked under supervisors Albino and González; Rosa Martínez was an HR/accounting staffer who frequently communicated with him.
- Early flirtation occurred, but after an April 2008 hotel incident Velázquez rebuffed Martínez; she thereafter sent angry emails implying she could get him fired.
- Velázquez complained orally to Albino and González about Martínez; Albino advised conciliatory behavior and suggested Martínez could get him terminated.
- Martínez compiled and relayed numerous criticisms about Velázquez to Albino, González, and senior HR in Ohio, recommending immediate termination.
- González initially favored a 30‑day performance improvement plan, but after Martínez escalated the matter to Ohio HR, Velázquez was fired on August 25, 2008 for absenteeism and unsatisfactory performance.
- Velázquez sued under Title VII for sex discrimination (quid pro quo/discriminatory discharge and hostile work environment) and for retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for DDR and Velázquez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether co‑worker Martínez caused discriminatory termination by retaliatory effort after sexual rejection | Martínez lobbied to have Velázquez fired in response to his rejection; her discriminatory motive and efforts proximately caused his firing | Martínez was only an HR/accounting staffer who gave feedback; final decisionmakers were supervisors (Albino/González), so no vicarious liability | Court: A jury could find Martínez's discriminatory efforts proximately caused the discharge; employer liability possible if employer knew or should have known of discriminatory motive and negligently allowed it to succeed; vacated summary judgment on this claim |
| Whether Martínez was Velázquez’s supervisor (triggering vicarious liability) | Velázquez argued Martínez’s influence made her effectively a supervisor | DDR argued Martínez lacked authority to take tangible employment actions (hire/fire/discipline); Albino and González were direct line managers | Held: No reasonable jury could find Martínez a supervisor under Vance/Noviello; she was a staff adviser without delegated authority |
| Whether conduct created hostile work environment | Velázquez claimed post‑April harassment was unwelcome, severe or pervasive | DDR argued prior mutual flirtation and the later incidents were neither severe nor pervasive | Held: Evidence insufficient for hostile environment—unwelcome harassment only after April but incidents were too few/mild to be severe or pervasive; summary judgment for DDR on this claim affirmed |
| Whether retaliation claim was timely and/or supported on the merits | Velázquez filed EEOC charge within 185 days; argued EEOC filing initiated Puerto Rico proceedings under worksharing, extending to 300 days; claimed termination was retaliatory for complaining | DDR argued timely period not enlarged and that Velázquez failed to show but‑for causation for retaliation | Held: Filing with EEOC did initiate Puerto Rico proceedings under the worksharing agreement and Puerto Rico agency had authority; but Velázquez waived merits argument on appeal and provided no evidence that his complaints caused the firing, so retaliation claim fails on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (proximate‑cause standard where supervisor’s discriminatory animus leads to adverse action)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (defining "supervisor" for vicarious liability as one empowered to take tangible employment actions)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2005) (degree of authority determines supervisory status)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile‑work‑environment standards: objectively and subjectively offensive; unwelcome)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (distinction between tangible employment actions and hostile environment; scope of employer liability)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)