Miles v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership et al

Filing 49

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 47 MOTION for Reconsideration of Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 02/28/2014.(mrj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

1
2
3
4

LONDON MILES,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 12-1288 (JAF)

v.
WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP,
SHAWYN MALEY,
Defendant.
5
6

OPINION AND ORDER

7

On March 27, 2012, London Miles (“Miles”) filed a complaint against defendants

8

Wyndham Vacation Ownership (“Wyndham”) and Shawyn Maley (“Maley”) alleging

9

employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

10

§ 2000e (“Title VII”), and its anti-retaliation proviso in Section 704(a). (Docket No. 1.)

11

On March 15, 2013, Wyndham filed a motion for summary judgment, which we denied

12

on January 24, 2014 (Docket Nos. 16, 43.) On February 19, 2014, Wyndham filed a

13

motion for reconsideration, and Miles filed a response on February 21, 2014. (Docket

14

Nos. 47, 48.) On reconsideration, we uphold our previous order denying summary

15

judgment, but clarify that we are trying this case as one of sexual discrimination, sexual

16

harassment, and a hostile work environment under Title VII, as well as a case of

17

retaliation under Title VII.

18

As we stated in our original order, summary judgment is only granted to the

19

defendant if no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff in any of her claims when all

20

reasonable inferences from the evidence are drawn in her favor. See Scott v. Harris, 550

Civil No. 12-1288 (JAF)

-2-

1

U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Wyndham appears to misunderstand this standard. Questions of

2

reasonableness based on disputed facts are matters for a jury in trial, not for a judge in

3

summary judgment. See id.

4

Wyndham also argues that “none of these conclusions of fact, as stated in the

5

Opinion and Order, are supported by the evidence on the record.” (Docket No. 47 at 3.)

6

As we explained in our original order, in summary judgment we must view all properly-

7

plead facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Therefore, to the extent

8

that any facts are disputed, the facts we set forth represented Miles’ properly-plead

9

version of the events at issue. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

10

475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Local Rules 56 (c) and (e).

11

We do, however, clarify our order based upon Wyndham’s request that we dismiss

12

“plaintiff’s Title VIII national origin discrimination claim.” (Docket No. 47 at 14.) We

13

read Miles’ Title VII claims as allegations of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment,

14

and a hostile work environment, together with allegations of retaliation per Section

15

704(a) of Title VII. (Docket No. 1.) Although the complaint states that “Defendants’

16

conduct constitutes gender, origin and race based discrimination, sexual harassment and

17

retaliation,” it only details “sexual harassment” and a “hostile environment.” (Docket

18

No. 1 at 2-3.) Likewise, Miles’ response in opposition to summary judgment opens its

19

Title VII section by stating that the act prohibits “discriminating against an individual

20

based on his or her sex.” (Docket No. 22 at 11.)

21

Miles’ allegations related to national origin discrimination appear in her summary

22

judgment pleadings where she claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment.

Civil No. 12-1288 (JAF)

-3-

1

She alleges that Maley spoke badly about Puerto Ricans in general and that she heard him

2

say that Puerto Rico was like a little Harlem, that the environment in Puerto Rico was

3

“fogeyish,” and that Puerto Ricans have no money. (Docket No. 22 at 12.) The First

4

Circuit has stated that “[c]ourts should avoid disaggregating a hostile work environment

5

claim,” and should instead “consider the totality of circumstances” to assess the

6

cumulative effect.

7

Therefore, these alleged comments are relevant in assessing whether Miles experienced a

8

hostile work environment and we feel no need no change our previous order.

9
10

O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713, 730 (2001).

For the foregoing reasons, Wyndham’s motion for reconsideration (Docket
No. 47) is DENIED.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28th day of February, 2014.

13
14
15

S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE