Rodriguez-Cordero et al v. Centro de Salud de Lares, Inc.
Filing
52
OPINION AND ORDER denying 48 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 08/21/2014. (dv)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
MAGDALENA RODRIGUEZ-CORDERO
et al.,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF)
v.
CENTRO DE SALUD DE LARES, INC.,
Defendant.
5
6
OPINION AND ORDER
7
Plaintiffs, medical doctor Magdalena Rodriguez Cordero (“Rodriguez-Cordero”),
8
Jose Oscar Ramos Rodriguez, and their marital partnership (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
9
filed a complaint on December 27, 2011 against Rodriguez-Cordero’s employer,
10
Defendant Centro de Salud de Lares Inc. (“Defendant”), alleging declaratory relief as
11
well as damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1972 and the Civil Rights Act
12
of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C.
13
§2000e(a), and various state laws for alleged discriminatory actions against Rodriguez-
14
Cordero on the basis of sex and pregnancy. (Docket No. 1.) Rodriguez-Cordero argued
15
that her new non-compete clause was gender-based discrimination on the basis of her
16
pregnancy. (Docket No. 41 at 2.) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
17
(“EEOC”) had previously issued Rodriguez-Cordero a right-to-sue letter in September
18
2011. (Docket No. 1.)
19
On October 24, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket
20
Nos. 13.) On August 7, 2013, we granted the Defendants’ motion, dismissing Plaintiffs’
Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF)
-2-
1
federal law claims with prejudice and dismissing Plaintiff’s commonwealth law claims
2
without prejudice. (Docket No. 41.) We found that Rodriguez-Cordero did not suffer an
3
adverse employment action because, although she declined its terms, Defendants had
4
offered her an employment contract. (Docket No. 41 at 3.)
5
Rodriguez-Cordero had “failed to establish that her employers treated non-pregnant
6
employees more favorably than they treated her,” because male doctors were offered
7
contracts containing the same non-compete clauses. (Docket No. 41 at 4.) Our opinion
8
made no mention of the claims being frivolous.
9
appealed, and on June 23, 2014 the First Circuit affirmed our judgment. (Docket Nos.
10
43, 46.)
11
We also found that
(See Docket No. 41.)
Plaintiffs
On July 1, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion for attorney’s fees.
(Docket No. 48.)
12
Title VII provides that the court, “in its discretion,” may grant attorney’s fees to
13
the prevailing party. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(k).1 “In civil rights cases, fee-shifting in
14
favor of a prevailing plaintiff is the rule, whereas fee-shifting in favor of a prevailing
15
defendant is the exception.” Casa Marie Hogar Geriatrico, Inc. v. Rivera-Santos, 38
16
F.3d 615, 618 (1st Cir. 1994). A prevailing defendant can only receive attorney’s fees if
17
the plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or [if] the plaintiff
18
continued to litigate after it clearly became so.” Christiansburg Garmet Co. v. Equal
19
Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). Therefore, “decisions
20
to grant defendants their fees are, and should be, rare.” Tang v. State of R.I., Dept. of
21
Elderly Affairs, 163 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 1998).
1
We cite to the codified version. However, this section is also referenced in the case law as § 706(k) of
Title VII.
Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF)
-3-
1
In this case, Plaintiffs’ claims ultimately failed. (Docket No. 41.) However, we
2
retain discretion over fee requests. Tang, 163 F.3d at 15. We do not find elements of
3
contumacy, temerity, or lack of respect for legal process. Simply plaintiff lost. In light
4
of the standards set forth above, we decline to award attorney’s fees to Defendants.
5
We, therefore, DENY Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees. (Docket No. 48.)
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of August, 2014.
8
9
10
S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?