999 F.3d 37
1st Cir.2021Background
- Giorgio Zampierollo worked 33 years at Trane Puerto Rico and was District General Manager; he was 55 when terminated in a 2013 reorganization.
- Trane reorganized the Puerto Rico office under Enrique Flefel (younger), eliminated Zampierollo’s position and split duties into two new roles filled by employees substantially younger than him.
- Zampierollo sued under the ADEA, Puerto Rico Law 100 (age discrimination), and Law 80 (unjust discharge). After discovery, Trane moved for summary judgment and to strike two exhibits Zampierollo submitted after the discovery cutoff.
- The district court struck the two exhibits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) and granted summary judgment to Trane, finding no replacement and no evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus.
- On appeal the First Circuit reversed the evidentiary exclusion (finding the late production harmless), held that Flefel’s contemporaneous “rejuvenate(ion)” comment is direct evidence of age-based animus, vacated summary judgment, and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two late-produced exhibits should be excluded under Rule 37(c)(1) | Exhibits were not prejudicial and were used to impeach/oppose summary judgment; late production harmless | Late disclosure violated discovery deadlines and prejudiced Trane by necessitating re-opening discovery | Reversed exclusion: late production was harmless here, so preclusion was improper |
| Whether Flefel’s statement about “rejuvenating” the team is direct evidence of age discrimination | Statement by the decisionmaker that they wanted to "rejuvenate" the management shows age-based animus | The remark was ambiguous, speculative, or misremembered and therefore not direct evidence | Statement, viewed in context, can be direct evidence and must be judged by a jury |
| Whether McDonnell Douglas prima facie showing (esp. replacement/age-neutrality) was lacking | Younger employees retained/placed in roles; plaintiff says direct evidence makes McDonnell Douglas unnecessary | Trane says position was eliminated, duties redistributed, RIF was age-neutral | District court erred to resolve on summary judgment: direct evidence defeats summary judgment and case must go to trial |
| Effect on Puerto Rico Law 100 and Law 80 claims | State claims are coterminous/derivative of ADEA and would survive if ADEA survives; Law 80 claim undermined if discriminatory | Restructuring justified, just cause under Law 80, preferential-retention rule inapplicable because no replacement | Vacated summary judgment on state claims as well; discrimination issues require trial resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (but-for causation standard for ADEA claims)
- Alvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi Cola of P.R. Bottling Co., 152 F.3d 17 (ADEA proof with direct vs. circumstantial evidence)
- Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (employer RIF may be pretext for age discrimination)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (factors for sanctions/exclusion under Rule 37)
- Lohnes v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., 272 F.3d 49 (narrow exception to exclusion when late disclosure is justified or harmless)
- Patten v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., 300 F.3d 21 (statements that are ambiguous or stray remarks do not constitute direct evidence)
- Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 777 F.3d 1 (summary judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Cruz-Vázquez v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc., 613 F.3d 54 (courts should not apply Rule 37(c)(1) exclusion absent prejudice)
- Lawes v. CSA Architects & Eng'rs LLP, 963 F.3d 72 (district courts have broad discretion in sanctions and should fit sanction to violation)