Villeneuve v. Avon Products, Inc., 919 F.3d 40

Background

Villeneuve worked for Avon from 1998 and was the lone Caribbean Call Center Correspondent (Caribbean CCC); Avon terminated her employment effective July 11, 2014 when she was 47.
She sued under Puerto Rico Law 100 (age and sexual-orientation discrimination) and Law 80 (unjust discharge), alleging she was fired for her age and because of an affectionate relationship with a lawyer who had litigated against Avon.
Avon moved to dismiss the sexual-orientation claim and later moved for summary judgment on the Law 100 age claim and the Law 80 unjust-discharge claim, arguing a bona fide reorganization justified the terminations.
The district court dismissed the sexual-orientation claim and granted summary judgment for Avon on the unjust-discharge and age-discrimination claims; Villeneuve appealed.
On appeal the First Circuit reviewed de novo the dismissal and summary-judgment rulings, treating the case under Puerto Rico substantive law as agreed by the parties.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal: whether allegations that Avon fired Villeneuve because she dated a lawyer who sued Avon state a sexual-orientation discrimination claim under Law 100	Villeneuve: Alleged Avon considered her "affective relationship" with a (different-gender) lawyer in firing her, which implicates sexual orientation protections	Avon: The claim targets the partner’s profession and litigiousness, not Villeneuve’s sexual orientation; Law 100 protects orientation, not association with a litigious partner	Court: Affirmed dismissal — allegations do not plausibly plead sexual-orientation discrimination under Law 100
Law 80 (unjust discharge): whether Avon showed just cause via bona fide reorganization (provision (e))	Villeneuve: Reorganization was pretextual; hearsay and lack of evidence of required financial stress; occupational classification error (Caribbean CCC same as CCC)	Avon: Produced sworn statements showing a cost-saving reorganization, elimination of the Caribbean CCC position, and distinct job duties/requirements	Court: Avon met its burden; bona fide reorganization justified termination and occupational classifications differed; summary judgment for Avon affirmed
Law 100 (age discrimination): whether Avon’s reorganization reason was pretext for age discrimination	Villeneuve: Younger temporary worker performed her duties after firing; ageist remarks and hiring patterns indicate discrimination	Avon: Duties were redistributed in an organized transition; decision motivated by economic reorganization, not age; stray remarks by nondecisionmakers insufficient	Court: Plaintiff failed to show pretext; summary judgment for Avon affirmed
Evidentiary objections: whether admissibility/hearsay issues in Avon's summary-judgment evidence defeat Avon’s showing	Villeneuve: Key financial/reorganization assertions are hearsay or lack personal knowledge; translations of Puerto Rico cases incomplete	Avon: Submitted sworn declarations under penalty of perjury and admissible evidentiary materials; judge did not rely on untranslated snippets	Court: Did not need to resolve all hearsay challenges because sworn statements supported bona fide reorganization; objections did not preclude summary judgment for Avon

Key Cases Cited

Pérez v. Horizon Lines, 804 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard for establishing "just cause" under Law 80 requires reasonable basis for employer's belief)
Baralt v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2001) (prima facie and burden-shifting framework under Puerto Rico Law 100)
Pérez-Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano, 520 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(c) treated like Rule 12(b)(6) for pleadings-stage review)
Álvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi Cola of P.R. Bottling Co., 152 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1998) (burden-shifting in Law 80/100 cases and plaintiff's obligations)
García-García v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 878 F.3d 411 (1st Cir. 2017) (plaintiff must show employer's proffered justification is pretext to survive Law 100 claim)