Ocasio v. Universidad de Puerto Rico
Filing
11
OPINION and ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 08/15/2014. (TW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
JOSE RAUL OCASIO,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 13-1908 (PG)
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Jose Ocasio filed suit against the University of Puerto Rico,
alleging that it violated federal law when it failed to accommodate
his
disability.
The
University
moves
to
dismiss.
We
grant
the
motion.
I.
Background
Ocasio, who is blind, served as the director of the Oficina de
Asuntos
para
Personas
con
Impedimentos
(OAPI),
an
administrative
office serving the needs of disabled individuals affiliated with the
University of Puerto Rico.
In early 2012, Ocasio requested that his
supervisors accommodate his disability by appointing a secretary to
assist him in the completion of his duties.
Ocasio maintains that his
request, which he ultimately submitted in writing, went unanswered.
On December 12, 2013, Ocasio filed this suit against the University,
alleging
violations
Disability Act.
(Docket No. 7.)
of
Titles
I
(Docket No. 1.)
We grant the motion.
and
II
of
the
Americans
with
The University moved to dismiss.
Civil No. 13-1908 (PG)
Page 2
II.
Legal Standard
A plaintiff’s complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it
alleges sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim for relief.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
assessing
a
complaint
claim’s
in
the
plausibility,
plaintiff’s
the
favor,
court
must
accept
all
construe
In
the
non-conclusory
allegations as true, and draw any reasonable inferences in favor of
the plaintiff.
Marrero-Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 677
F.3d 497, 500 (1st Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
III.
Discussion
The
University
argues
that
Ocasio
has
failed
to
demonstrate
exhaustion of administrative remedies for his Title I ADA claims.
(Docket No. 7t 6.)
We agree.
The ADA prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified
individual
based
on
disability.
42
U.S.C.
Shinseki, 660 F.3d 557, 562 (1st Cir. 2011).
§
12112(a);
Farris
v.
Claims of employment
discrimination arising under Title I of the ADA are subject to the
same remedies and procedures as those under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII).
Under
Title VII, an employee must exhaust his administrative remedies before
initiating a complaint of discrimination in federal court by filing a
charge with the EEOC, or alternatively, with an appropriate state or
local agency, within the prescribed time limits.
See 42 U.S.C. §
2000e–16(c); see also Bonilla v. Muebles J.J. Alvarez, 194 F. 3d 275,
278 (1999).
The same is true for claims under the ADA.
42 U.S.C. §
Civil No. 13-1908 (PG)
12117(a);
see
Cir.1996).
remedies
Page 3
Roman–Martinez
v.
Runyon,
100
F.3d
213,
216
(1st
A claimant’s unexcused failure to exhaust administrative
effectively
bars
the
courthouse
door.
Aly
v.
Mohegan
Council, Boy Scouts of America, 711 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2013).
Ocasio
has
failed
to
demonstrate
that
he
exhausted
administrative remedies available to him before filing this suit.
the
He
offers no indication that he filed a charge with the EEOC or any other
appropriate
Commonwealth
agency.
Neither
has
Ocasio
argued
any
special circumstances, such as equitable tolling, that would exempt
him from filing with the EEOC or an appropriate Commonwealth agency.
Accordingly,
Ocasio’s
claims
under
Title
I
of
the
ADA
must
be
dismissed.
Next, the University argues that Ocasio’s claims under Title II
of
the
ADA
fail
because
Title
II
does
not
cover
discrimination occurring within the employment context.
claims
of
We agree.
While the First Circuit has yet to expressly rule on this matter,
see, e.g., Carmona-Rivera v. Puerto Rico, 464 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir.
2006),
we
have
discrimination
previously
under
the
held
ADA
fall
that
claims
exclusively
for
within
employment
Title
I.
Sánchez-Arroyo v. Department of Education, 842 F. Supp. 2d 416, 432433 (D.P.R. 2012) (“Title II’s provision that no qualified individual
shall,
by
programs,
reason
or
of
disability,
activities
of
a
be
public
excluded
entity
from
applies
the
services,
only
to
the
“outputs” of a public agency, not to “inputs” such as employment”).
We see no reason to disturb the logic of our previous ruling.
such, Ocasio’s claims under Title II of the ADA must be dismissed.
As
Civil No. 13-1908 (PG)
Page 4
Finally, because the applicable time period for filing claims
before the administrative forums seems to have elapsed, we conclude
that Ocasio’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
Under
Title
I
and
II
of
the
ADA,
a
plaintiff
must
file
an
employment-discrimination charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the
alleged discrimination.
27, 31 (1st Cir. 2009).
Thornton v. United Parcel Service, 587 F.3d
Here, Ocasio first raised the need for a
workplace accommodation in early 2012.
Ocasio has yet to file any
charge with the EEOC—nearly two and a half years later.
As such, we
dismiss this complaint with prejudice.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT the defendant’s motion to
dismiss (Docket No. 17), and the plaintiff’s federal law claims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 15, 2014.
S/ JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
UNITED STATES 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?