Blanco-Torres v. Fuentes Maldonado et al
Filing
43
ORDER: Denying 31 Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process. Granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi (AS)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
3
JOSE BLANCO TORRES,
4
Plaintiff
5
v.
6
JUNTO DE GOBIERNO DE SERVICIO
DE EMERGENCIA, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 14-1622 (GAG)
7
Defendants.
8
9
OPINION AND ORDER
10
José Blanco Torres, Plaintiff in this matter, brought this action against Junta de Gobierno
11
del Servicio de Emergencia 9-1-1 (“the Board”) and Director Roberto Fuentes-Maldonado
12
(“Fuentes”) in his official and individual capacity (collectively referred to as “Defendants”),
13
alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability and age in violation of
14
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; the Age Discrimination in
15
Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.; the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
16
States constitution, pursuant to § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991; Puerto Rico Law No. 44 of
17
July 2, 1985, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 1 §§ 501 et seq. (“Law 44”); and No. 100 of June 1959, P.R.
18
LAWS ANN. tit. 29 §§ 146 et seq. (Docket No. 1 and 26.) Plaintiff essentially claims that
19
Defendants unlawfully and unconstitutionally discriminated against him by terminating his
20
employment due to his disability stemming from his Parkinson’s disease. (Docket No. 26.)
21
Presently before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint
22
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and (6).
23
Defendants argue that the amended complaint should be dismissed because the process served
24
25
26
(Docket No. 31.)
In sum,
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
upon the Board and Fuentes was insufficient and the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
2
relief can be granted. (Id. at 5-27.) Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion. (Docket No. 41.)
After reviewing the pleadings and pertinent law, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES
3
4
5
in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss at Docket No. 31.
I.
Relevant Factual and Procedural Background
6
In 2005, Plaintiff began to slowly develop Parkinson’s disease, which is a progressive,
7
degenerative disease of the nervous system that affects both motor and non-motor functions.
8
(Docket No. 26 ¶¶ 25-26.) Plaintiff worked as an attorney for the Board from January, 2009 until
9
his termination in March, 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13, 22-24.) He was hired as a contract attorney and
10
later became in-house counsel. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) In March, 2012, Plaintiff underwent a surgical
11
procedure known as “Deep Brain Stimulation” to attenuate his Parkinson’s disease symptoms. (Id.
12
¶ 15.) Almost everyone in his office was aware of his disease and this procedure. (Id. ¶ 16.)
13
Upon returning to work, Plaintiff was given reasonable accommodation for his disability by then
14
Executive Director of the Board, Manuel González. (Id. ¶ 17.) Thereafter, as a result of Puerto
15
Rico’s November, 2012 general elections, a new administration came to power, which resulted in
16
new members to the Board’s staff, including Executive Director Fuentes. (Id. ¶ 18-21.) On or
17
about February 25, 2013, Plaintiff met with A. Vera (“Vera”), a member of the Elections
18
Transition Committee and newly appointed Human Resources Director whose full name is
19
unknown to him. (Id. ¶ 21.) In this meeting, Plaintiff informed Vera that he was an impaired
20
person aggrieved with Parkinson’s disease and that he had gone through a special surgical
21
procedure to mitigate his impairment. (Id.) Plaintiff also informed Vera that despite his disease,
22
23
24
25
26
2
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
with some reasonable accommodations, he could perform all of the essential duties of his current
2
position. (Id. ¶ 23.)
3
On that same date, Vera attended a meeting in which he expressed that he “was worried
4
about [Plaintiff’s] Parkinson’s disease health condition.” (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff wrote a letter
5
to Fuentes, requesting a meeting with him. (Id. ¶ 24.) Said letter was never answered and the
6
Board never attempted to engage in the process of establishing reasonable accommodation to allow
7
Plaintiff to perform his essential and official duties with the Board. (Id.) On March 1, 2013,
8
Plaintiff was terminated from his position with the Board. (Id.)
9
Plaintiff filed this suit, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated because of his disability
10
on March 1, 2013. (Docket No. 26 ¶¶ 22-24.) That same day, Plaintiff filed a charge of
11
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id. ¶¶ 9, 33.)
12
Thereafter, on August 28, 2014, Plaintiff received the Notice of the Right to Sue by the EEOC and
13
United States Department of Justice. (Id. ¶ 36.) On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff amended his
14
complaint, which added his claim under Laws 44 and 100.
15
II.
Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5)
16
The court will address, as a threshold matter, whether the Board and Fuentes were properly
17
served and, therefore, whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. According to
18
the Proof of Service, Plaintiff attempted to effect service on Defendants by leaving a copy of the
19
summons with Fuentes’s secretary, Norma Rivera (“Rivera”). (Docket Nos. 18 at 2; 18-1 at 2; 18-
20
2 at 2; 18-3 at 2.) Defendants now challenge this service by moving to dismiss the amended
21
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and including
22
sworn statements by Fuentes and Rivera, indicating that Fuentes never authorized or appointed
23
3
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
Rivera to receive service on his behalf in his official or individual capacity. (Docket Nos. 31-1 and
2
31-2.) Defendants further note that Plaintiff failed to include a copy of the complaint with the
3
summons. (Docket No. 31 at 6.) Plaintiff responds by first arguing that because Rivera was a
4
secretary of the Board and Fuentes, it logically follows that she had the authority to receive
5
summons on behalf of the Board and Fuente. (Docket No. 41 at 3-5.) Nevertheless, as an
6
alternative argument, Plaintiff avers that to the extent that service of process was defective, the
7
appropriate remedy is to quash service and allow Plaintiff to cure its defects because it is clear that
8
the purpose of giving Defendants notice was attained. (Id. at 5.)
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides that service of process must be made “within 120 days after
10
the complaint is filed.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). Service of process may be made upon the individual
11
being sued, by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the individual’s “usual place of
12
abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there,” by delivering a copy to the
13
individual’s agent, or in accordance with the laws of Puerto Rico. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e). It is well
14
established that in Puerto Rico “individuals may not be served by merely leaving the complaint
15
and summons at their place of business, unless an agent receives the documents.” Figueras v.
16
Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 553 F. Supp. 2d 43, 44 (D.P.R. 2007). The courts have recognized
17
that for a person to be an agent capable of receiving process for another, he or she must be
18
authorized as such. See Miranda v. IPR Pharm., No. 10-2238, 2011 WL 5977813, at *6 (D.P.R.
19
Nov. 29, 2011); Rivera v. Bank One, 145 F.R.D. 614, 626 (D.P.R. 1993). Further, because service
20
of process is a constitutional imperative of due process of law, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has
21
demanded strict compliance when its requirements are involved. See Quinones Roman v. CIA
22
ABC, 152 P.R. Dec. 367, P.R. Offic. Trans. (2000).
23
24
25
26
4
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), a defendant may move for dismissal of a cause of
2
action for failure to comply with said rules by contesting the manner in which service of process
3
was performed. Ramirez De Arellano v. Colloides Naturels Int’l, 236 F.R.D. 83, 85 (D.P.R.
4
2006). However, Dismissal for failure to meet the service requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) is
5
disfavored where “there is a reasonably conceivable means through which service may be
6
obtained.” Id. at 85 n.4 (“if the first service is ineffective, and the defects are curable, the [c]ourt
7
should treat a motion to dismiss as a motion to quash service of process in the alternative and
8
retain the case pending effective service”).
9
The resolution of this issue is simple. An examination of the specific facts articulated by
10
Defendants, along with the pertinent law and Plaintiff’s own concession, leads this court to find
11
that Plaintiff’s service of process was insufficient because Rivera was not authorized or appointed
12
by Fuentes to receive service on his behalf in his official or individual capacity. When faced with
13
this determination, the court has broad discretion to dismiss the action or retain the case and quash
14
service of process. Ramirez De Arellano, 236 F.R.D. at 86; see also 5 C. Wright & A. Miller,
15
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1354 (2004). Because the initial defects in Plaintiff’s service of
16
process are easily curable and this was Plaintiff’s first attempt to serve Defendants, this court
17
hereby quashes service of process and orders Plaintiff to properly serve Defendants by March 24,
18
2015. To decide otherwise would be a waste of the court’s and the parties’ times and resources.
19
20
Accordingly, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s
insufficient service of process and orders Plaintiff to re-serve Defendants promptly.
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
III.
Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
2
With respect to their 12(b)(6) motion, Defendants argue: (1) that the Eleventh Amendment
3
to the United States Constitution bars Plaintiff’s ADA claim against the Board and Fuentes in his
4
official capacity; (2) there is no individual liability under Title I of the ADA and thus Plaintiff’s
5
claim against Fuentes in his individual capacity fails; (3) Plaintiff’s complaint fails to sufficiently
6
state an ADEA claim upon which relief can be granted against the Board and Fuentes in his
7
official and individual capacity; (4) Plaintiff’s civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
8
supplemental state law claim are time-barred; (5) the Eleventh Amendment also bars Plaintiff’s
9
supplemental state law claim; and (6) even though Plaintiff marked retaliation as an additional
10
ground of discrimination in his EEOC Charge of Discrimination, he did not allege such in either
11
his initial or amended complaint. (Docket No. 31 at 7-27.)
12
Plaintiff responds by conceding the following: (1) there is no cognizable legal claim for
13
individual liability under Title I of the ADA; (2) no sufficient facts are alleged to support a
14
retaliation claim under the ADA; (3) no sufficient facts are alleged to support a cause of action
15
under the ADEA; (4) his civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be time-barred; and (5) his
16
supplemental state law claim may be barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but is not time-barred.
17
(Docket No. 41 at 2-3.) As such, Plaintiff voluntarily seeks to dismiss those claims and asks this
18
court that such dismissals be without prejudice. (Id. at 2-3, 7-8.) Lastly, Plaintiff contends that he
19
specifically references the language of Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against
20
people with disabilities by public entities, and thus his claim against the Board and Fuentes in his
21
official capacity is properly brought under Title II of the ADA. (Id. at 6-7.)
22
23
24
25
26
6
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
A.
Standard of Review
2
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
3
granted, see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), the court analyzes the complaint in a two-step process under
4
the current context-based “plausibility” standard established by the Supreme Court. See Schatz v.
5
Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Ocasio-Hernández v.
6
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011) which discusses Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
7
(2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). First, the court must “isolate and
8
ignore statements in the complaint that simply offer legal labels and conclusions or merely rehash
9
cause-of-action elements.”
Id.
A complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but
10
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
11
statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Second, the court must then “take the
12
complaint’s well-pled (i.e., non-conclusory, non-speculative) facts as true, drawing all reasonable
13
inferences in the pleader’s favor, and see if they plausibly narrate a claim for relief.” Schatz, 669
14
F.3d at 55.
15
situation’s plausibility is a context-specific job that compels the court to draw on its judicial
16
experience and common sense. Id. (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). This “simply calls for
17
enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of” the necessary
18
element. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
Plausible, means something more than merely possible, and gauging a pleaded
19
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
20
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—’that the pleader is
21
entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). If, however, the
22
“factual content, so taken, ‘allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
23
7
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
liable for the misconduct alleged,’ the claim has facial plausibility.” Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d
2
at 12 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
3
B.
Discussion
4
i. ADA Claim Against Individuals, Retaliation Claim, and ADEA Claim.
5
At the outset, after reviewing the amended complaint, pertinent law, and taking into
6
consideration that Plaintiff has conceded that he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
7
granted for the following claims, the court DISMISSES: (1) the ADA claim against Fuentes in his
8
individual capacity; (2) any retaliation claim under the ADA; and (3) all claims brought under the
9
ADEA.
10
However, the court denies Plaintiff’s request that said claims be dismissed without
11
prejudice. The court has the discretion to decide whether to grant a motion for voluntary dismissal
12
with or without prejudice. See Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. Leith, 668 F.2d 46, 49
13
(1st Cir. 1981). The basic purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to
14
freely permit the plaintiff, with court approval, to voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice
15
as long as no other party will be prejudiced. Gonzalez v. Santiago, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 202, 205
16
(D.P.R. 2001). Courts in this district have held that legal prejudice occurs if a defendant is
17
voluntarily dismissed when he is entitled to a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice on a
18
summary judgment motion. See id.; Molina-Olivo v. Experience Works, Inc., No. 09-1331, 2009
19
WL 1767552, at *2 (D.P.R. June 17, 2009). The court finds that this reasoning logically applies to
20
motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) as well because they are also dispositive motions.
21
Defendants are entitled to dismissal with prejudice on these claims for the following
22
reasons. First, it is well-settled that Title I of the ADA does not apply to employees in their
23
8
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
individual capacity; thus, Plaintiff’s claim against Fuentes in his individual capacity fails as a
2
matter of law. See Roman-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 655 F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir.
3
2011). Second, other than marking retaliation on his Charge of Discrimination form with the
4
EEOC, Plaintiff does not allege any facts or legal assertions regarding such a claim, and, as such,
5
fails to properly plead this claim. Lastly, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts whatsoever that relate to
6
his age or any discrimination by Defendants because of his age and thus he has alleged, but not
7
shown, that he is entitled to relief. See Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556, 561 (1st Cir. 2005)
8
(articulating requirements of an ADEA claim).
9
10
11
Accordingly, because Defendants are entitled to final judgment of dismissal with prejudice
on their 12(b)(6) motion, the court DISMISSES the aforementioned claims with prejudice.
ii. Civil Rights Claim Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12
The court next addresses Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s civil rights claim
13
brought pursuant to § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The court addresses this claim
14
separately and in greater detail simply because, even though Plaintiff asks this court for permission
15
to voluntarily dismiss this claim, he states that he concedes that said claim may be time-barred, but
16
fails to provide any further explanation. (Docket No. 41 at 3.)
17
In civil rights actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court applies the forum
18
state’s statute of limitations period for personal injury actions, which in Puerto Rico is one year.
19
Ruiz-Sulsona v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 334 F.3d 157, 159 (1st Cir. 2003). Federal law is then
20
applied to determine when the limitations period begins to accrue, which, in most instances, occurs
21
“when the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, of the injury on which the action is based.” Id.
22
In wrongful discharge suits, like the present case, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the
23
9
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
plaintiff learns of the decision to terminate his employment.” Id. Furthermore, “the Supreme
2
Court of Puerto Rico has ruled that the filing of an administrative complaint will not toll the
3
running statute of limitations for tort actions nor violations of constitutional rights, provided that
4
an administrative agency, such as the . . . EEOC, does not possess jurisdiction over such matters.”
5
Sanchez Ramos v. Puerto Rico Police Dept., 392 F. Supp. 2d 167, 181 (D.P.R. 2005) (quoting
6
Cintron v. E.L.A., 127 P.R. Dec. 582, 595 (1990)); see Leon-Nogueras v. Univ. of Puerto Rico,
7
964 F. Supp. 585, 589 (D.P.R. 1997) (holding that the filing of an administrative charge could not
8
toll a § 1983 cause of action for an alleged violation of constitutional rights because neither the
9
EEOC or Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Unit have jurisdiction over such claims).
10
Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated on March 1, 2013. (Docket No. 26 ¶¶ 24-25.)
11
That same day, he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which evidences that he learned
12
of the decision to terminate his employment then. (Id. ¶ 33.) Moreover, Plaintiff fails to allege
13
that he sought relief from and/or received a right to sue letter from the Department of Justice
14
regarding his constitutional claim. Therefore, Plaintiff had until March, 2014 to file the present
15
lawsuit. However, Plaintiff filed this suit in August, 2014—almost a half year after the limitations
16
period had ran. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is time-barred and is DISMISSED with
17
prejudice, as opposed to without prejudice.
18
iii. ADA Claim Against the Board and Fuentes in his Official Capacity.
19
In moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim against the Board and Fuentes in his official
20
capacity, Defendants contend that because Plaintiff did not indicate which title of the ADA he
21
relies upon in asserting his claim, they assume that it must be Title I, which is not applicable in this
22
case due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. (Docket No. 31 at 12-16.) Plaintiff’s
23
10
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
response emphasizes that although he cited the ADA in its entirety (“42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.”), he
2
included the language of Title II when he articulated the legal grounds for his allegations. (Docket
3
No. 41 at 6-7.) As such, Plaintiff argues, by merely citing a regulation from the Department of
4
Justice, that he brings his ADA claim under Title II. (Id. at 7.)
5
Title II of the ADA was enacted “to prohibit ‘discrimination by governmental entities in
6
the operation of public services, programs, and activities.’” Rivera–Concepcion v. Puerto Rico,
7
786 F. Supp. 2d 489, 497 (D.P.R. 2011) (citing Toledo v. Sanchez, 454 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006);
8
42 U.S.C. § 12132). It provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
9
such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
10
programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42
11
U.S.C. § 12132. To state a claim for a violation of Title II, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is a
12
qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the
13
benefits of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated
14
against; and (3) that such exclusion, denial, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.
15
Toledo, 454 F.3d at 31 (citing Parker v. Univ. de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2000)); see
16
also Toledo-Colon v. Puerto Rico, 812 F. Supp. 2d 110, 122-23 (D.P.R. 2011). Furthermore, the
17
Department of Justice has promulgated a regulation for Title II, which interprets Title II to hold
18
that “[n]o qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to
19
discrimination in employment under any service, program, or activity conducted by a public
20
entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.140(a).
21
Turning to the present case, the court notes that Defendants are correct that the Eleventh
22
Amendment bars private suits seeking monetary damages for state violations of Title I of the
23
11
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
ADA. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 514 (2004). However, it is clear by the language
2
used in Plaintiff’s amended complaint that he is grounding his ADA claim in Title II of that Act, as
3
opposed to Title I. (See Docket No. 26 ¶ 1 (noting that the ADA “prohibits public entities from
4
denying services or benefits to otherwise qualified employees with disabilities on the basis of those
5
disabilities, and obliges equal opportunity for people with disabilities to access, participate in and
6
benefit from a public entity’s aids, benefits, and services.”)). To the extent that Defendants might
7
argue that Plaintiff must cite the exact section of the ADA, the court reminds them that all
8
reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of Plaintiff and the court must liberally read the
9
complaint. See Rodríguez-Reyes v. Molina-Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 2013).
10
Moreover, although Defendants do not argue to the contrary, Plaintiff’s claim appears to
11
sufficiently allege that he was a qualified individual with a disability that substantially limits a
12
major life activity, that being Parkinson’s disease (Docket No. 26 ¶¶ 23-29), that he was
13
discriminated against by being terminated from his position (Id. ¶ 25), and that he was terminated
14
by reason of his disability. (Id. ¶¶ 22-24, 29-30). Furthermore, it is not disputed that the Board is
15
an arm of the Puerto Rico government, and thus a public entity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)
16
(defining public entity to include “any department, agency, . . . or other instrumentality of a
17
State”).
18
However, Plaintiff fails to mention that whether Title II encompasses employment
19
practices—that is, whether public employees can sue public entities for employment
20
discrimination—is not well-settled law. The Circuit Courts that have considered this question are
21
split. See Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619, 627 (7th Cir. 2013) (no cognizable
22
employment discrimination claim under Title II); Elwell v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents of
23
12
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
Univ. of Oklahoma, 693 F.3d 1303, 1314 (10th Cir. 2012) (not cognizable); Zimmerman v. Or.
2
Dep't of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 1999) (not cognizable), cert. denied, 531 U.S.
3
1189 (2001); Bledsoe v. Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 133 F.3d 816, 820-
4
22 (11th Cir. 1998) (cognizable). Additionally, the District Courts within our Circuit that have
5
addressed this issue are also split in their interpretation of Title II. See Skinner v. Salem School
6
Dist., 718 F. Supp. 2d 186, 188 (N.H. 2010) (cognizable); Downs v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 13
7
F. Supp. 2d 130, 134-36 (D. Mass. 1998) (cognizable); Motzkin v. Trs. of Boston Univ., 938 F.
8
Supp. 983, 996 (D. Mass. 1996) (not cognizable). The courts that hold that Title II encompasses
9
employment practices look to (1) the legislative history of Title II, which notably references § 504
10
of the Rehabilitation Act as a model for Title II (an act that is unquestionably intended to include
11
employment discrimination), and (2) the Department of Justice’s implementing regulation that
12
expressly states that Title II covers employment practices. See, e.g., Bledsoe, 133 F.3d at 821-22
13
(extensively analyzing the legislative history of Title II and noting that Congress contemplated a
14
coordinated interpretation of Title II and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because language in § 504
15
very similar to that of 42 U.S.C. § 12132); Downs, 13 F. Supp. 2d at 134-36 (same); see also 28
16
C.F.R. § 35.140(a). These courts delve into extrinsic sources to interpret the statute because they
17
hold that the catch-all phrase at the end of 42 U.S.C. § 12132—“or be subjected to discrimination
18
by any such entity”—is unclear as to whether this encompasses employment discrimination.
19
Bledsoe, 133 F.3d at 821-22; Downs, 13 F. Supp. 2d at 134-36.
See
20
The courts that have rejected the aforementioned interpretation have reasoned that (1) Title
21
II’s phrase “services, programs, and activities” clearly and unambiguously refers only to “outputs”
22
of a public entity and not “inputs” such as employment and (2) Title II says nothing about
23
13
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
employment, whereas Title I expressly does. See, e.g., Brumfield, 735 F.3d at 626; Zimmerman,
2
170 F.3d at 1174; Motzkin, 938 F. Supp. at 996; see also Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v.
3
Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 n.1 (2001) (declining to address whether Title II of the ADA is
4
available for claims of employment discrimination when Title I of the ADA expressly deals with
5
that subject, but citing case holding that “where Congress includes particular language in one
6
section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that
7
Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion” (citing Russello
8
v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983)).
9
Moreover, the First Circuit, while ultimately staying the case on abstention grounds, has
10
addressed this issue in dicta. See Currie v. Grp. Ins. Comm’n, 290 F.3d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 2002). In
11
Currie, the court stated:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The answer is not so plain. While Title I’s language clearly covers employment
discrimination, and public employers are not exempted from the definition of a
covered entity, Title I says nothing about it being an exclusive remedy or avenue
for suit. 42 U.S.C. § 12112. It is not unheard of for individuals to have
overlapping rights, even within one Act. Here, the two Titles grant substantively
different rights—for instance, while Title I gives successful plaintiffs the
opportunity to obtain compensatory and punitive damages, there is no such right
under Title II. Id. § 12133 (referencing 29 U.S.C. § 794a). Nor is the language of
Title II clear on this question. The words “public services, programs, or
activities” do not necessarily exclude employment, and the “subjected to
discrimination” clause may broaden the scope of coverage further. Moreover, the
Department of Justice has promulgated a regulation stating that Title II does cover
employment practices. 28 C.F.R. § 35.140 (2001); see also 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App.
A (2001) (elaborating on § 35.140). This regulation is entitled to deference under
the Chevron doctrine if the statutory language is unclear. Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed.
2d 694 (1984). In addition, Currie cites to legislative history which she says
demonstrates that Congress intended Title II to cover employment and to function
in the same manner as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
22
23
24
25
26
14
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
Currie, 290 F.3d at 6-7. Therefore, while not holding that Title II encompasses employment
2
practices, the First Circuit has clearly stated that “the language of Title II [is not] clear on this
3
question” and also appears to have suggested that Title II could be construed to encompass
4
employment. See id. at 7; see also Skinner, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 192. As such, when the language
5
of a statute is unclear and ambiguous, the implementing agency’s regulation is entitled to
6
deference under the Chevron doctrine. See Chevron U.S.A, Inc., 467 U.S. at 842-43 (requiring
7
deference to implementing agency where it reasonably resolves a statutory ambiguity). And, as
8
noted above, the Department of Justice has specifically stated that “[n]o qualified individual with a
9
disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under
10
any service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.140(a) (emphasis
11
added). Indeed, a sister District Court recently followed this very reasoning. See Skinner, 718 F.
12
Supp. 2d at 192.
13
In light of the aforementioned case law and First Circuit reasoning, this court holds that
14
because the Department of Justice’s interpretation of Title II reasonably resolves the ambiguity in
15
the language of Title II of the ADA, it is entitled to deference under the Chevron doctrine. When
16
that deference is accorded, Title II of the ADA authorizes employment discrimination claims
17
against public entities. See id.; Currie, 290 F.3d at 7. Furthermore, the court notes that it also
18
reaches this result and applies an expansive interpretation of Title II of the ADA in light of its
19
broad remedial purpose. See Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 333 F.3d 299, 307 (1st Cir. 2003)
20
(“Given the remedial purpose underlying the ADA, courts should resolve doubts about such
21
questions in favor of disabled individuals.”); Arnold v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 136 F.3d 854,
22
861 (1st Cir. 1998) (“The ADA is a ‘broad remedial statute.’”)
23
24
25
26
15
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
All this being said, there are still two remaining issues in this case that will need to be
2
addressed going forward. The first issue is that Plaintiff must still prove that state sovereign
3
immunity is not a defense to an action under Title II, as this is determined on a claim-by-claim
4
basis. See Toledo, 454 F.3d at 31-32. However, the determination of this issue appears to be
5
destined for summary judgment.1 The second issue involves Plaintiff’s request for compensatory
6
and punitive damages as a remedy for his Title II claim. To start, punitive damages are clearly not
7
available for a Title II claim, and, as such, Plaintiff is barred from seeking such. See Nieves-
8
Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 126 (1st Cir. 2003). Further, private individuals may claim
9
compensatory damages under Title II only for intentional discrimination. See id. Although the
10
issue of whether damages can be awarded for emotional injury under Title II has been a topic of
11
considerable debate, “the First Circuit has acknowledged, without expressly holding, that damages
12
for emotional injury could be available in situations where economic harm is not present if there
13
exists a sign of actual animus towards the disabled.” Vazquez v. Municipality of Juncos, 756 F.
14
Supp. 2d 154, 167 (D.P.R. 2010) (citing Schultz v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n of U.S., 139 F.3d
15
286, 290-91 (1st Cir. 1998)). At this stage in the litigation, Plaintiff has sufficiently plead that
16
Defendants intentionally discriminated against him by firing him due to his disability. Whether
17
Defendants’ actions were motivated by animus towards the disabled is an issue that will need to be
18
addressed on summary judgment.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
To decide whether a particular plaintiff can sue a governmental entity for damages for purposes of the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, the court must determine on a claim-by-claim basis, “(1)
which aspects of the state’s alleged conduct violated Title II; (2) to what extent such misconduct also violated the
Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct violated Title II but did not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment, whether Congress's purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of conduct is
nevertheless valid.” Toledo, 454 F.3d at 31 (quoting United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159 (2006)).
16
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
In light of the aforementioned discussion, the court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion to
1
2
dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim against the Board and Fuentes in his official capacity.
iv. Puerto Rico Law Claim.
3
4
Lastly, the court addresses Plaintiff’s supplemental law claim against Defendants brought
5
under Law 44 and Law 100. As noted above, Defendants argue that said claims are barred by the
6
Eleventh Amendment and also time-barred, and, as such, must be dismissed. (Docket No. 31 at
7
23-26.) Plaintiff responds by asking this court for a dismissal without prejudice, conceding that
8
such claim may be barred by the Eleventh Amendment but is not time-barred. (Docket No. 41 at
9
7-8.)
10
Law 44 “is Puerto Rico’s counterpart to the ADA.”
Salgado-Candelario v. Ericsson
11
Caribbean, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 151, 175 (D.P.R. 2008); Vazquez v. Municipality of Juncos, 756
12
F. Supp. 2d 154, 166 (D.P.R. 2010). It prohibits discrimination against “persons with any kind of
13
physical, mental or sensory disability” by any public or private institution in Puerto Rico, P.R.
14
LAWS ANN., tit. 1, § 504, and “was intended to harmonize Puerto Rico law with the federal
15
statutory provisions of the ADA.” Torres-Alman v. Verizon Wireless Puerto Rico, Inc., 522 F.
16
Supp. 2d 367, 401 (D.P.R. 2007). The elements of proof for a claim under Law 44 are essentially
17
the same as those for establishing a claim under the ADA, Salgado-Candelario, 614 F. Supp. 2d at
18
175, and, as such, the courts in this district have consistently held that there is no individual
19
liability under Law 44. See Cardona Roman v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 799 F. Supp. 2d 120, 131-32
20
(D.P.R. 2011); Vázquez Vázquez v. Checkpoint Sys. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 217,
21
220 (D.P.R. 2009). Moreover, the doubling of damages that is part of the remedy set forth in Law
22
23
24
25
26
17
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
100 was adopted as a remedy available for claims related to violations of Law 44. See P.R. LAWS
2
ANN. tit 1 § 511; Rivera Flores v. Cia ABC, 138 P.R. Dec. 1, P.R. Offic. Trans. (1995).
3
The court first briefly addresses Defendants’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity
4
argument. “A [S]tate’s consent to suit in the federal courts must be unequivocally expressed. . . .
5
It must be stated by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text
6
as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction. . . . Furthermore, in order for a state
7
statute or constitutional provision to constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, it must
8
specify the state's intention to subject itself to suit in federal court.” Acevedo Lopez v. Police
9
Dep't of Com. of Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotation
10
marks omitted; emphasis in original). “Puerto Rico, despite the lack of formal statehood, enjoys
11
the shelter of the Eleventh Amendment in all respects.” Id. Further, it is not disputed that the
12
Board is an arm of the Puerto Rico government, and thus a public entity. See 42 U.S.C. §
13
12131(1) (defining public entity to include “any department, agency, . . . or other instrumentality
14
of a State”). Notably, the First Circuit has held that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has not
15
waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under Law 44 because there is no specific
16
language in the statute indicating that Puerto Rico intended to make itself subject to damages in
17
federal court for disability-based employment discrimination. Id. at 29. Therefore, it is clear that
18
Puerto Rico has not consented to be sued in this court for violations of Law 44. At this juncture,
19
the court would typically dismiss this claim without prejudice so that it may be brought in the
20
Court of First Instance. However, the court must first address Defendants’ statute of limitations
21
argument to determine if said claim can nevertheless be brought in Commonwealth court.
22
23
24
25
26
18
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has held that “the filing of a Title VII claim with the
2
EEOC not only tolls but also suspends the running of the statute of limitations for claims under
3
Law 100 arising out of the same incidents. . . . The Supreme Court reasoned that the federal legal
4
framework for simultaneously administering claims under Title VII and state anti-discrimination
5
laws presented a special situation that required that Court adopt federal tolling rules for Puerto
6
Rico law-based claims.” Leon-Nogueras v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 964 F. Supp. 585, 588 (D.P.R.
7
1997) (citing Matos Molero v. Roche Products, Inc., 132 P.R. Dec. 470 (1993)); see Rodriguez-
8
Torres v. Caribbean Forms Mfr., Inc., 399 F.3d 52, 61 (1st Cir. 2005) (“By filing a charge with the
9
EEOC or the Department of Labor and notifying the employer of the charge, an employee can stop
10
the running of the limitations period [for a Law 100 claim] until the administrative proceeding has
11
concluded.”). Courts have applied the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s reasoning in Matos Molero to
12
find that the limitations period is also tolled for violations of Laws 17 and 69 when an
13
administrative complaint is filed with the EEOC for federal claims, even though the Puerto Rico
14
Supreme Court has not expressly held as such for those specific laws. See Rodriguez-Torres, 399
15
F.3d at 61; Leon-Nogueras, 964 F. Supp. at 588. Further, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has
16
recognized the interrelationship between ADA and Law 44 claims and noted that although
17
plaintiffs need not exhaust administrative remedies under Law 44, they can file said claims along
18
with their ADA claims upon receiving the right to sue letter. See Rivera Flores v. Cia ABC, 138
19
P.R. Dec. 1, P.R. Offic. Trans. (1995).
20
Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated because of his disability on March 1, 2013.
21
(Docket No. 26 ¶¶ 22-24.) That same day, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the
22
EEOC. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 33.) Thereafter, Plaintiff received the Notice of the Right to Sue by the EEOC
23
19
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
and United States Department of Justice on August 28, 2014. (Id. ¶ 36.) On December 8, 2014,
2
Plaintiff amended his complaint, which added his claim under Laws 44 and 100. (Id. ¶ 5.) As
3
such, if the tolling rule applies, Plaintiff’s Law 44 and Law 100 claim would be timely. The court
4
finds that the tolling rule does indeed apply to Law 44 because both Law 44 and Law 100 serve the
5
purpose of combating discrimination in the employment context. Further, in promulgating Law
6
44, the Puerto Rico Legislature incorporated into said statute the remedies, powers, and procedures
7
established in Law 100. See P.R. LAWS ANN. tit 1 § 511. Therefore, the court is confident that the
8
Puerto Rico Supreme Court would apply the tolling rules from Law 100 to a Law 44 claim.
9
Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff’s filing of his charge of discrimination with the EEOC
10
tolled the running of the statute of limitations for his claim under Laws 44 and 100. Plaintiff’s
11
Puerto Rico Law claim is thus not time-barred. Nevertheless, the court hereby DISMISSES said
12
claim without prejudice because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has not waived its Eleventh
13
Amendment sovereign immunity under Law 44. Plaintiff may re-file this claim in the Court of
14
First Instance.
Therefore, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Puerto Rico Law
15
16
claim.
17
IV.
Conclusion
18
In sum, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s
19
insufficient service of process and orders Plaintiff to re-serve Defendants by March 24, 2015. The
20
court also DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim against the Board and
21
Fuentes in his official capacity. Moreover, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
22
following claims: (1) the ADA claim against Fuentes in his individual capacity; (2) any retaliation
23
20
24
25
26
Civil No. 14-1622 (GAG)
1
claim under the ADA; (3) all claims brought under the ADEA; and (4) the § 1983 civil rights
2
claim. As such, the court DISMISSES those claims with prejudice. Lastly, the court grants
3
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s supplemental law claim but DISMISSES this claim
4
without prejudice.
5
SO ORDERED.
6
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 10th day of March, 2015.
s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPI
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
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?