Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)

1/42

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 15- 1424

ELI ZABETH CARRASQUI LLO- ORTI Z; CARMEN GUZMN- VZQUEZ;

OUVI A; V CTOR RI VERA; MATI LDE RODR GUEZ- NOA; BRENDAVZQUEZ- D AZ; FRED VOLTAGGI O- DE J ESS,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

AMERI CAN AI RLI NES, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge

Bef or e Thompson, Hawki ns, * and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Al f r edo Fer nndez- Mar t nez, wi t h whom Del gado & F

LLC, was on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.J uan Enj ami o, wi t h whom Hunt on & Wi l l i ams LLP was

f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 22, 2016


2/42

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Ar t i cl e 3 of Puer t o R

No. 80 ( "Law 80") r equi r es compani es t hat oper ate i n Pu

t o pay a st at ut or y sever ance, cal l ed a "mesada, " t o t hei r

i n Puer t o Ri co who ar e t er mi nat ed as par t of a down

r est r uct ur i ng. The mesada must be pai d onl y i f t hose

wer e t er mi nated even t hough l ess seni or empl oyees wi t hi n

category r emai n. For a company wi t h onl y one of f i

cal cul at i on i s f ai r l y st r ai ght f or war d. But f or a com

sever al of f i ces, i t can be mor e compl ex. The st at ut e

t hat f or such a company, an empl oyee' s seni or i t y must be

i n r el at i on t o t he seni or i t y of "al l t he empl oyees of t he

t hat i s to say, t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on al l of i t s of f

t he company r egul ar l y t r ansf er s empl oyees among i t s of

t he of f i ces oper at e i n a "hi ghl y i nt egr at ed manner . "

Ann. t i t . 29, 185c(b) .

The di sput e at hand concer ns t he pr oper appl i

t hi s aspect of Ar t i cl e 3 t o Amer i can Ai r l i nes, I nc. ( "Am

t he def endant her e and a company wi t h a l one of f i ce i n Pu

and many of f i ces wor l dwi de. I n par t i cul ar , we must deci

t r eat empl oyee t r ansf ers Amer i can made t o, f r om, and


3/42

t he seni or i t y of t er mi nat ed empl oyees i n Amer i can' s Pu

of f i ce i n rel at i on t o empl oyees i n Amer i can' s of f i ces wo

The answer t o t hat quest i on i s det er mi nat i v

appeal br ought by t he pl ai nt i f f s. They ar e seven f or mer

empl oyees who worked i n Amer i can' s sol e Puer t o Ri co of f

pl ai nt i f f s concede t hat t hey wer e t he l east seni or emp

t he Puer t o Ri co of f i ce when Amer i can cl osed i t down and

go. Thus, t he pl ai nt i f f s coul d be ent i t l ed t o a mesad

t hei r seni or i t y had t o be comput ed i n r el at i on t o A

of f i ces gener al l y, a comput at i on t hat woul d be r equi r e

Amer i can' s t r ansf er s of empl oyees out si de Puer t o Ri co co

Ar t i cl e 3.

The Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed i n f avor of Amer i ca

basi s of t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent const r

Ar t i cl e 3 i n Reyes Snchez v. Eat on El ec. , 189 P. R.

( 2013) . The Di st r i ct Cour t r ead t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme

have const r ued Ar t i cl e 3 t o count onl y those t r ansf er s t

i n Puer t o Ri co and t o count none that ar e made to or f r om

out si de of i t . Because we r ead t hat pr ecedent as l ess d

on t he par t i cul ar i ssue conf r ont ed her e t han t he Di st r


4/42

Ri co Supr eme Cour t , as t he r ul es of t hat cour t per mi t

See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 32, app. I I I , Rul e 53. 1( f ) .

I.

Law 80 r equi r es compani es t o pay a mesada t o

who ar e t er mi nat ed wi t hout " j ust cause. " Ot er o- Bur gos

Amer i can Uni v. , 558 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . The

pr ovi des si x exampl es of j ust cause, i ncl udi ng t hr ee t h

t o company r est r uct ur i ng or downsi zi ng. See P. R. Laws

29, 185b( d) , ( e) , ( f ) . I f an empl oyer t er mi nat es empl

one of t hose t hr ee r easons, however , t he empl oyer m

pr ef er ence t o those empl oyees wi t h gr eat er seni or i t y o

wi t h l ess seni or i t y wi t hi n t he same occupat i onal cl assi

I d. 185c. I f t he empl oyer t er mi nates a more seni or emp

r et ai ns a l ess seni or empl oyee wi t hi n the same occ

cl assi f i cat i on, t he empl oyer must pay t he t er mi nated e

mesada. I d. 185a, 185c.

Ar t i cl e 3 of Law 80 f ur t her est abl i shes l i mi t

ext ent of t he seni or i t y anal yses t hat must be per f

compani es t hat "have sever al of f i ces. " I d. 185c( a) .

case of compani es " whose usual and r egul ar pr act i ce i


5/42

cont r ast , i f t he company' s " r egul ar and usual pr act i

t r ansf er i t s empl oyees f r om one uni t t o anot her , and var i ous uni t s oper at e i n a r el at i vel y i nt egr at ed manner wi

t o per sonnel aspect s, seni or i t y shal l be comput ed on t he

al l t he empl oyees of t he company, t hat i s t o say, t a

consi der at i on al l of i t s of f i ces. " I d. 185c( b) .

st at ut e makes t he t r ansf er anal ysi s a necessary pr edi c

determi nat i on of how t he company must "comput e[ ] " seni or

Her e, t he par t i es agr ee t hat Amer i can t er mi

pl ai nt i f f s as a resul t of a company downsi zi ng or r est

t hat f i t wi t hi n one of t he t hr ee subsect i ons t hat t r

appl i cat i on of Ar t i cl e 3. The par t i es f ur t her agr ee t

t he t er mi nat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f s, no empl oyees i n t he pl

occupat i onal cl assi f i cat i on - l ess seni or or ot he

r emai ned i n Amer i can' s l one Puer t o Ri co of f i ce, whi ch i s

San J uan. Fi nal l y, t he par t i es agr ee t hat empl oyee

pl ai nt i f f s' occupat i onal cl assi f i cat i on di d r emai n empl o

l east some of Amer i can' s ot her of f i ces wor l dwi de.

The key di sput e between t he par t i es t hus con

Ar t i cl e 3 appl i es t o an empl oyer wi t h one of f i ce i n Pu


6/42

Amer i can has j ust one of f i ce i n Puer t o Ri co, we must deci d

t he st at ut e' s pr edi cat e t r ansf er anal ysi s can be satt r ansf er s t hat ar e made t o or f r om an of f i ce out si de

Ri co. I f t he t r ansf er anal ysi s cannot be sat i sf i ed t hat

pl ai nt i f f s ' cl ai m cannot succeed.

II.

On i t s f ace, t he t ext of Ar t i cl e 3 cer t ai nl y

r ead t o accor d wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' posi t i on. Ar t i cl e 3

di st i nct i on bet ween of f i ces i n Puer t o Ri co and t hose o

Puer t o Ri co. Ar t i cl e 3 i nst ead si mpl y r ef er s t o t he t r a

of empl oyees "f r om one of f i ce, f act or y, br anch or

anot her , " wi t hout def i ni ng any of t hose t er ms. I d.

Thus, pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat al l of a company' s t

i ncl udi ng t r ansf er s t o or f r om an of f i ce out si de of Pue

count f or t he pur pose of det ermi ni ng whet her t he comp

"r egul ar and usual pr act i ce" of t r ansf er r i ng i t s empl oye

t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e 3.

But t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t appear s t o

a si gni f i cant l i mi t at i on i nt o t he f aci al l y br oad l an

Ar t i cl e 3. I n Reyes Snchez, 189 P. R. Dec. at 608 (


7/42

est abl i shment s on an i nt er nat i onal l evel . Thi s anal ysi s i

t o det er mi ni ng t he f r equency of t r ansf er s of empl oyees becompany' s est abl i shment s i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of Puer t o R

Read l i t er al l y, t hen, Reyes Snchez appear s t o

t hat t r ansf er s t o or f r om of f i ces out si de of Puer t o Ri co

di sr egarded i n consi der i ng whether a company has a " r e

usual pr act i ce" of t r ansf er r i ng empl oyees acr oss of f i ces.

t hat under st andi ng of Reyes Snchez, a company wi t h j ust o

i n Puer t o Ri co, l i ke Amer i can, can never have a " r egul ar

pr act i ce" of t r ansf er r i ng empl oyees f or t he pur poses of A

And so, such a company i s never subj ect t o t he

r equi r ement s of subpar agr aph ( b) .

The pl ai nt i f f s' pr i mar y ar gument agai nst af f i

t hat Reyes Snchez ar ose i n a f act ual cont ext di f f er ent

one we conf r ont her e and t hat t he Cour t ' s hol di ng was i

l i mi t ed t o t hat cont ext . Speci f i cal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s no

t he appel l ees appear t o accept - - t hat t he empl oyer

Snchez, Eat on El ect r i cal de Puer t o Ri co, I nc. , oper at ed

Ri co onl y as a subsi di ar y of a l ar ger , mul t i nat i onal cor

t he Eat on Cor por at i on. For t hat r eason, t he pl ai nt i f f


8/42

Puer t o Ri co that wer e at i ssue i n Reyes Snchez wer e

f r om one cor por at e ent i t y t o anot her . Si nce Amer i can i scor por at e ent i t y, under whi ch al l of i t s of f i ces wor l dwi de

pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat a t r ansf er f r om Amer i can' s San J u

t o one of i t s of f i ces i n anot her j ur i sdi ct i on woul d be a

bet ween t wo of f i ces wi t hi n t he same cor por at e ent i t y. An

pl ai nt i f f s cont end, Reyes Snchez si mpl y does not addr es

st at ut or y anal ysi s appl i es t o such a company.

Mor eover , t he pl ai nt i f f s cont end, t her e i s go

t o t r eat a company t hat oper ates i n Puer t o Ri co onl y

l ocal subsi di ar y di f f er ent l y f r om one t hat oper at es as

gl obal cor por at e ent i t y wi t h of f i ces i n Puer t o Ri c

pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat because t he l at t er t ype of com

di r ect l y avai l ed i t sel f of t he l aws of Puer t o Ri co,

pr ot ect i ons l i ke t hose i n Ar t i cl e 3 shoul d appl y wi t hout l

on such a company. By cont r ast , a company t hat operat es

Ri co onl y t hr ough a l ocal subsi di ar y has not avai l ed i t se

l aws of Puer t o Ri co, and t hus onl y t hat subsi di ar y

subj ect ed t o t he r est r i ct i ons i mposed by Ar t i cl e 3.

But Reyes Snchez di d use seemi ngl y br oad l a


9/42

609 n. 21 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 25 n. 21) The Co

emphasi zed t hat Ar t i cl e 3' s anal ysi s was "l i mi t ed tt r ansf ers of empl oyees bet ween t he company' s est abl i shmen

j ur i sdi ct i on of Puer t o Ri co, " I d. at 608 ( cer t i f i ed t r ans

24) wi t hout any ment i on of t he appar ent f act t hat t he

spanned t wo cor por at e ent i t i es.3

Mor eover , t he Cour t nowher e acknowl edged, m

r el i ed on, t he appar ent f act t hat Eat on El ect r i cal de Pue

I nc. , oper at ed as a subsi di ar y of Eat on Cor por at i on. I ns

cour t r ef er r ed t o Eat on El ect r i cal de Puer t o Ri co, I nc. , a

and never ment i oned Eat on Cor por at i on. I d. at 608 (

t r ansl at i on at 24) . And t hen, when descr i bi ng t he i nt e

t r ansf er s at i ssue i n t hat case, t he Cour t r ef er r ed t o

pl ant i n Hai na, Domi ni can Republ i c" usi ng t he same l a

used t o r ef er t o "Eat on' s pl ant i n Las Pi edr as" ( a ci t y

Ri co) . I d. at 607 n. 20, 609 n. 21 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i

n. 20, 25 n. 21) . Fi nal l y, when t he Cour t appl i ed i t s h

t he f act s bef or e i t , t he Cour t st at ed t hat "movement of

or t r ansf er s f r om Eat on' s pl ant s i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i on


10/42

consi der ed a t r ansf er f or pur poses of est abl i shi ng t he

of t r ansf er s bet ween t he company' s est abl i shment s i n PuerI d. at 609 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 24- 25) ( emphasi s

Thus, t he Cour t at no poi nt i ndi cat ed t hat i t even knew,

consi der ed, t he f act t hat t he Eat on pl ant s i n ot her j ur i

may have been oper ated by a di f f er ent corporate ent i t y ti n Puer t o Ri co.

And t he Reyes Snchez Cour t ' s descr i pt i on

l egi sl at i ve hi stor y of Ar t i cl e 3 i s i nconsi stent

pl ai nt i f f s' pr ef er r ed r eadi ng of t hi s pr ecedent . T

descr i bed Ar t i cl e 3 as "est abl i sh[ i ng] cer t ai n addi t i onal

t hat compani es t hat have more t han one est abl i shment

Ri co must compl y wi t h. " I d. at 602 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i

( emphasi s added) . The Cour t t hen not ed t hat , pr i o

enact ment of subsect i ons ( a) and ( b) , t he i nt er pr et at i

Puer t o Ri co Depar t ment of Labor and Human Resour ces was t

a company t hat had sever al est abl i shment s r educed perso

or der of r et ent i on based on seni or i t y had t o be est abl i s

on al l of t he empl oyees of t he di f f er ent est abl i shment

company i n Puer t o Ri co. " I d. ( emphasi s added) . Fi nal l y,


11/42

company wi t h whi ch t he empl oyee has had no r el

what soever . " I d. at 603 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 17- 18) added) .

Thus, Reyes Snchez descr i bes t he t wo subp

wi t hi n Ar t i cl e 3 as pl aci ng a l i mi t on a pr evi ous

i nt er pr et at i on of Ar t i cl e 3, under whi ch a seni or i t y anaal ways r equi r ed t o span al l of a company' s of f i ces i n Pue

But i f t hat under st andi ng of Ar t i cl e 3' s or i gi nal scope

t hen on t he pl ai nt i f f s' vi ew, subpar agr aph ( b) di d not mer

a l i mi t but al so si mul t aneousl y br oadened t he scope of

dr amat i cal l y, by creat i ng an obl i gat i on t o conduct a

seni or i t y anal ysi s under some ci r cumst ances.

I t i s not abl e, t her ef or e, t hat t he Reyes Snche

descr i pt i on of t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t o Ar t i cl e 3 con

r ef er r ed t o t he t wo subpar agr aphs of Ar t i cl e 3 as a l

i mpact i ng "compani es t hat have more t han one est abl i s

Puer t o Ri co. " I d. at 602 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 16)

added) . By cont r ast , t he Reyes Snchez Cour t ' s descr

t hat l egi sl at i ve hi st or y makes no r ef er ence t o what p

cont end i s t he l i nchpi n of t he pr ovi si on: t hat t r ansf er


12/42

Never t hel ess, a hol di ng i n f avor of Amer i c

r equi r e an i nf er ence f r om si l ence as wel l . The Reyehol di ng, al t hough f r amed i n br oad t er ms, was cr af t ed t o d

a par t i cul ar case wi t h par t i cul ar f act s. The Cour t si mpl

cl ear l y addr ess, because i t had no occasi on to addr ess, a

i n whi ch t he empl oyer ' s Puer t o Ri co and ot her of f i ces al lwi t hi n t he same cor por at e ent i t y. And, as not ed, t he p

of Ar t i cl e 3, st andi ng on i t s own, does not i t sel f pr ovi d

basi s f or f i ndi ng a gener al l i mi t at i on of t he ki nd t he

Cour t , qui t e under st andabl y, r ead Reyes Snchez t o ha

r esi di ng i n t he st at ut e.

We ar e t hus l ef t wi t h a choi ce bet ween app

hol di ng of Reyes Snchez t o a f act ual scenar i o i t di d not

addr ess, or appl yi ng t he unqual i f i ed t ext of t he st at ut

t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' s havi ng al r eady l i mi

l anguage i n Reyes Snchez. Faced wi t h such a choi ce,

nor mal l y woul d be ot her Puer t o Ri co pr ecedent i nt er pr et i n

3 of Law 80. Her e, however , i t appear s t hat no on- poi nt

besi des Reyes Snchez exi st s. Nei t her Amer i can nor t he p

have ci t ed any such pr ecedent , and we have f ound none.


13/42

Gr ay LLP v. J al ber t ( I n Re Engage, I nc. ) , 544 F. 3d 50

Ci r . 2008) .4

And al t hough Reyes Snchez cont ai ns a i ndi cator s suggest i ng t hat t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t

l i kel y t o ext end t hat hol di ng t o t hi s case, we ar e r el

"encr oach on t he pr er ogat i ve of t hat cour t by r eso

quest i on our sel ves. " I d. ; see Sant i ago- Hodge v. Par keCo. , 859 F. 2d 1026, 1033 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( " [ O] ur cr e

acr oss- t he- boar d rul e may be unnecessary, and may of f end t

due t o l ocal cour t s, si nce Puer t o Ri co cour t s have never

t hi s speci f i c i ssue. ") . I nst ead, t hi s i s a case "i n wh

ar e l ocal i ssues of l aw t hat ar e deci si ve i n t he

act i on . . . , f or whi ch t her e ar e no cl ear pr ecedent

deci si ons of t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Commonweal t h of Puer

P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 32, app. I I I , Rul e 53. 1( f ) . We t hu

t he bet t er cour se i s, consi st ent wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' s

i n t hei r br i ef i ng t o us, [ Repl y Br . 10- 11] , t o cer t i f y t he

i n accor dance wi t h t he r ul es of t he Puer t o Ri co Supr e

See Pagn- Col n, 697 F. 3d at 19.


14/42

III.

Accordi ngl y, we hereby certify t he f ol l owi ng qut he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t :

I n Reyes Snchez v. Eat on El ec. , 189 P. R. Dec. 586, ( 2013) , t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t st ated t hat anal ysi s of empl oyer t r ansf er act i vi t y under Ar t i cof Law 80 " i s l i mi t ed t o det er mi ni ng t he f r equenc

t r ansf er s of empl oyees bet ween t he compaest abl i shment s i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of Puer t o RiUnder Reyes Snchez, does t hat l i mi t at i on appl y wt he empl oyer has one of f i ce i n Puer t o Ri co and mul tof f i ces i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons and oper at es al l ofof f i ces under t he same cor por at e ent i t y?

We woul d al so wel come any f ur t her gui dan

r el evant Puer t o Ri co l aw t hat t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme

choose t o pr ovi de. See Bost on Gas Co. v. Cent ur y I ndem.

F. 3d 8, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

The Cl er k of t hi s cour t i s di r ect ed t o f or wa

Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t , under t he of f i ci al seal of t h

a copy of t he cer t i f i ed quest i on and our opi ni on i n t

al ong wi t h copi es of t he br i ef s and appendi x f i l ed by t he

We r et ai n j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s appeal pendi ng r esol ut i

cer t i f i ed quest i on.

-Appendix Follows-


15/42

-15-


16/42

-16-


17/42

-17-


18/42

-18-


19/42

-19-


20/42

-20-


21/42

-21-


22/42

-22-


23/42

-23-


24/42

-24-


25/42

-25-


26/42

-26-


27/42

-27-


28/42

-28-


29/42

-29-


30/42

-30-


31/42

-31-


32/42

-32-


33/42

-33-


34/42

-34-


35/42

-35-


36/42

-36-


37/42

-37-


38/42

-38-


39/42

-39-


40/42

-40-


41/42

-41-


42/42

-42-

Documents

Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)