Carrasquillo v. American Airlines, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER: ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION at 61 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Plaintiffs' Motion to compel. Plaintiffs to file opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment on or before August 15, 2014. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi (MET)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

2
3
4

ELIZABETH CARRASQUILLO, et als.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7
8

Civil No. 13-1449 (GAG)

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

9
OPINION AND ORDER

10
11

Plaintiffs allege they were wrongfully terminated by American Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant”),

12

in violation of Law 80, Puerto Rico’s wrongful discharge statute. P.R. LAWS ANN. tit, 29 §§ 185a-

13

185m. (Docket No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue Defendant violated Law 80's seniority clause

14

because they failed to properly conduct an analysis of Plaintiffs’ seniority, by occupational

15

classification, based on all company employees including Defendant’s offices outside Puerto Rico.

16

(Docket No. 1)

17

On May 30, 2014, Defendant moved for summary judgment and dismissal of Plaintiffs’

18

claims. (Docket Nos. 56 & 57.) In turn, Plaintiffs request the court compel Defendant to produce

19

discovery, that they claim is necessary to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

20

(Docket No. 58.) Specifically, they request the court compel Defendant to produce documents

21

relating to its operations and transfer of employees, including those of offices located outside Puerto

22

Rico. Id. On June 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Marcos Lopez issued a Report and Recommendation

23

(“R&R”) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. (Docket No. 61) Both

24

parties timely field their oppositions to the R&R. (Docket Nos. 62 & 63.) After careful review, the

25

undersigned ADOPTS the R&R at Docket No. 61 as follows, and GRANTS in part and DENIES

26

in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel at Docket No. 58.

27

Magistrate Judge Lopez’s R&R suggests two possible courses of action. First, the court

28

could certify the issue to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. Alternatively, the court could rule on

Civil No. 13-1449 (GAG)

2

1

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel relying on Reyes Sanchez v. Eaton, 2013 PRSC 148 (2013) ( Docket

2

No. 47-1) as precedent, limiting discovery to “information regarding seniority of employees within

3

Puerto Rico and of transfers made within Puerto Rico.” (Docket No. 61 at 5.) The undersigned

4

chooses the latter road.

5

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, arguing that Plaintiffs’ request regarding

6

the seniority calculation under Law 80 is without merit, according to a recent opinion issued by the

7

Puerto Rico Supreme Court. In Reyes Sanchez, 2013 PRSC 148 (2013) (Docket No. 47-1), the

8

Puerto Rico Supreme Court discussed the scope of Law 80's seniority calculation and held that the

9

1
provision does not extend to an employer’s overseas operations and transfer of employees. T h e

10

court finds this issue has already been decided by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, therefore,

11

certification is not necessary. Moreover, the court adopts and incorporates the R&R’s discussion

12

regarding the scope of Law 80's seniority calculation and legislative intent. (See Docket No. 61 at

13

5-7.)

14
15

As recommended by Magistrate Judge Lopez, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in
part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. (See Docket No. 61 at 7-10.)

16

SO ORDERED.

17

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 16th day of July, 2014.
S/Gustavo A. Gelpí

18
19

GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ

20

United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As to the scope of Law 80's seniority calculation the Puerto Rico Supreme Court stated:
As to the transfers alleged which arose from establishments in other jurisdictions,
we believe Article 3 of the Law does not require an analysis of movement of
personnel between the company’s establishments on an intentional level. This
analysis is limited to determining the frequency of transfers of employees between
the company’s establishments in the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico.
Consequently, movement of personnel or transfers from Eaton’s plants in other
jurisdictions is not considered a transfer for purposes of establishing the frequency
of transfers between the company’s establishments in Puerto Rico.

Reyes Sanchez, at 24-25. (Docket No. 47-1 at 25.)