Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1487

WALESKA GARAYALDE- RI J OS,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

MUNI CI PALI TY OF CAROLI NA; J OS APONTE- DALMAU, Mayor of t heMuni ci pal i t y of Car ol i na,

Def endant s, Appel l ees,

GERMN SANTI AGO- SERPA; J UAN ORTI Z- CRESPO;NYDI A R. TALAVERA- FORTY, Auxi l i ar Di r ect or of Human Resour ces

Depar t ment ; MABEL LPEZ,

Def endants.

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

[ Hon. Franci sco A. Besosa, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges.

J uan M. Fr ont er a Suau f or appel l ant .J or ge Mar t nez- Luci ano, wi t h whomPedro E. Or t i z- l var ez, LLC

was on br i ef , f or appel l ee Muni ci pal i t y of Car ol i na.Rosa El ena Pr ez- Agost o, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al , wi t hwhomMar gar i t a Mer cado- Echegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , was on br i ef ,f or appel l ee J os Apont e- Dal mau.


2/22

Mar ch 28, 2014


3/22

LYNCH, Chief Judge. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed a mot i on

t o di smi ss t he Ti t l e VI I and st ate l aw cl ai ms of a woman who

aspi r ed t o be a muni ci pal f i r ef i ght er . She has appeal ed.

Wal eska Gar ayal de- Ri j os sued t he Muni ci pal i t y of Car ol i na

( Car ol i na) and J os Apont e- Dal mau, t he Mayor of Car ol i na ( Mayor ) ,

i n Sept ember 2011, al l egi ng t hat Car ol i na had r ef used t o hi r e her

as a f i r ef i ght er f or sever al vacanci es because of her gender ,

al t hough she was al l egedl y t he most qual i f i ed candi dat e. Car ol i na

event ual l y di d hi r e Gar ayal de- Ri j os as a f i r ef i ght er af t er i t had

al r eady hi r ed al l egedl y l ess qual i f i ed mal es and onl y af t er t he

Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y Commi ssi on ( EEOC) concl uded t hat

Car ol i na had di scri mi nat ed agai nst Gar ayal de- Ri j os i n i t s hi r i ng

pr ocess. Gar ayal de- Ri j os asser t ed t hat Car ol i na cont i nued t o

di scr i mi nat e agai nst her on t he j ob and r et al i at ed agai nst her f or

her pr e- hi r e compl ai nt of sex di scr i mi nat i on t o t he EEOC.

Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s compl ai nt br ought sex di scr i mi nat i on

and r et al i at i on cl ai ms under Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of

1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2 et seq. , as wel l pendent st at e l aw

cl ai ms, based on t he def endant s' pr e- and post - hi r e conduct . We

concl ude t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s

compl ai nt under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) was based on at l east

t hr ee er r or s of l aw: ( 1) use of t he pr i ma f aci e case, an

evi dent i ar y st andar d, as a pl eadi ng r equi r ement ; ( 2) di smi ssal of

pl ai nt i f f ' s ret al i at i on cl ai m based sol el y on i t s i ncorr ect

-3-


4/22

t empor al anal ysi s of causat i on at t he mot i on- t o- di smi ss st age; and

( 3) sua spont e di smi ssal of cer t ai n cl ai ms wi t hout any not i ce t o

t he par t i es. As a r esul t , we r ever se i n par t and di smi ss t he

appeal as t o t hose cl ai ms Garayal de- Ri j os has wai ved. We r emand

f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

I .

We r eci t e the f act s f r om Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s amended

compl ai nt , t aki ng her f act ual al l egat i ons as t r ue and dr awi ng

r easonabl e i nf erences i n her f avor . Hammond v. Kmar t Corp. , 733

F. 3d 360, 361 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

A. Pr e- Hi r e Di scr i mi nat i on and EEOC Compl ai nt

On November 16, 2009, 1 Carol i na announced ei ght

f i r ef i ght er posi t i on vacanci es. Gar ayal de- Ri j os appl i ed i n

November 2009. She al so sent t he Mayor a l et t er on November 16

st at i ng her ski l l s and aski ng t o be consi der ed f or t he posi t i on.

The Mayor has f i nal aut hor i t y on al l hi r i ng deci si ons i n Car ol i na.

I n J anuar y 2010, Gar ayal de- Ri j os r ecei ved a phone cal l

f r om one of Car ol i na' s empl oyees aski ng her t o at t end a physi cal

f i t ness t est . The t est consi st ed of exer ci ses, i ncl udi ng

wei ght l i f t i ng, pushups, a 100- met er r un, cl i mbi ng st ai r s, and

movi ng i n conf i ned spaces whi l e wear i ng f i r ef i ght er gear and

1 The compl ai nt st ates t hat Carol i na announced t he vacanci esi n November 2010, not November 2009. We assume t hi s was at ypogr aphi cal er r or , as di d t he di st r i ct cour t , gi ven t he t i mel i net hat f ol l ows.

-4-


5/22

carr yi ng a f i r e hose. Garayal de- Ri j os was t he onl y woman among t he

t went y- ei ght candi dat es t hat t ook t he f i t ness t est . Af t er t he

"r escue t r uck st ai r [ ] cl i mbi ng t est , " ot her candi dat es

congr atul ated Garayal de- Ri j os on her good per f ormance.

I n Febr uary 2010, Garayal de- Ri j os was asked t o t ake a

second physi cal f i t ness t est t hat consi st ed of a si mul at ed f i r e i n

a conf i ned space dur i ng whi ch candi dat es had t o hel p a t r apped

vi ct i m. Agai n, Garayal de- Ri j os was t he onl y woman.

On March 4, 2010, t he Di r ector of Carol i na' s Human

Resour ces Depar t ment , Nydi a Tal aver a, sent Gar ayal de- Ri j os a l et t er

sayi ng t hat she had been i ncl uded i n t he "Regi st er of El i gi bl e[ s]

f or t he Car ol i na Fi r ef i ght er posi t i on" wi t h a t est scor e of 80.

The scor e was based on academi c pr eparat i on, per f or mance on

physi cal t est s, and past exper i ence. The l et t er asked her t o

at t end an i nt ervi ew on March 11, 2010.

At t hi s poi nt i n t he appl i cat i on pr ocess, t he appl i cant

pool had been r educed t o si xteen f r om t he or i gi nal t went y- ei ght .

Garayal de- Ri j os was t he onl y woman, and she had t he hi ghest t est

scor e of al l of t he appl i cant s.

Ger mn Sant i ago Ser pa, t he Di r ect or of t he Car ol i na

Muni ci pal Fi r ef i ght er Br i gade, i nt er vi ewed Gar ayal de- Ri j os on Mar ch

11. Sant i ago knew Gar ayal de- Ri j os f r om her pr evi ous j ob i n t he

-5-


6/22

Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co Fi r e Depar t ment . 2 He war ned her t hat

t he f i r ef i ght er posi t i on i s a "24/ 7" j ob and sai d t hat he knew t hat

she had a chi l d. He asked her how she was goi ng t o deal wi t h chi l d

car e. J uan Or t i z Cr espo, t he Secur i t y Manager f or Car ol i na, al so

i nt er vi ewed Gar ayal de- Ri j os. He asked her whomshe l i ved wi t h, i f

she l i ved i n Car ol i na, and i f her par ent s l i ved i n Car ol i na.

Gar ayal de- Ri j os f ol l owed up on her appl i cat i on but got no

r esponse f or sever al mont hs af t er her Mar ch 2010 i nt er vi ew. I n

J une 2010, she went t o Car ol i na' s Human Resources Depart ment and

was t ol d t hat Car ol i na had not yet hi r ed anyone t o f i l l t he

f i r ef i ght er vacanci es.

On J une 28, 2010, Garayal de- Ri j os sent a second l et t er t o

t he Mayor st at i ng her credent i al s ( i ncl udi ng her scor e of 80) ,

sayi ng that "she [ woul d] be honored t o be t he f i r st woman"

f i r ef i ght er i n Car ol i na, and aski ng t hat she not be di scr i mi nat ed

agai nst based on her gender .

I n J ul y 2010, Gar ayal de- Ri j os f ol l owed- up agai n, t hi s

t i me vi si t i ng t he Car ol i na Muni ci pal Fi r e St at i on di r ectl y. Ther e

she l ear ned t hat t hr ee mal e candi dat es had i n f act been hi r ed as

f i ref i ght ers .

On August 17, 2010, Gar ayal de- Ri j os sent a thi r d l et t er

t o t he Mayor aski ng why she had not been i nf or med about t he st at us

2 The compl ai nt does not s t ate whether Garayal de- Ri j os workedas a f i r ef i ght er at t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co Fi r eDepart ment .

-6-


7/22

of her appl i cat i on and r eaf f i r mi ng her i nt er est i n t he f i r ef i ght er

posi t i on.

Garayal de- Ri j os al l eges she was t he onl y woman who

appl i ed f or a f i r ef i ght er posi t i on and she met al l t he j ob

qual i f i cat i ons, yet mal e candi dat es wi t h l ower t est scor es wer e

hi r ed i nst ead of her . As a r esul t , she consul t ed wi t h t he Women

Def ender ' s Of f i ce i n Puer t o Ri co and sent Car ol i na and the Mayor

not i ce of her gender di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m on Oct ober 27, 2010.

On November 1, 2010, Garayal de- Ri j os f i l ed a charge of

gender di scr i mi nat i on wi t h t he EEOC based on Car ol i na' s r ef usal t o

hi r e her . On December 2, 2010, Car ol i na deni ed Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s

cl ai m of sex di scri mi nat i on. At t hi s poi nt , Car ol i na had onl y one

of t he ei ght f i r ef i ght er vacanci es l ef t unf i l l ed. Men, al l egedl y

l ess qual i f i ed, had been hi r ed f or t he f i r st seven posi t i ons.

The EEOC l at er sought document s f r om Car ol i na, and

Car ol i na compl i ed wi t h t he r equest on J anuar y 31, 2011. Af t er i t s

i nvest i gat i on, t he EEOC i ssued a "Let t er of Det er mi nat i on" on

Febr uar y 16, 2011, whi ch Gar ayal de- Ri j os at t ached t o t he compl ai nt .

I n t hat l et t er , t he EEOC concl uded t hat " [ e] vi dence obt ai ned does

est abl i sh a vi ol at i on [ f or gender di scr i mi nat i on] under Ti t l e VI I . "

The l et t er expl ai ned: " [ Gar ayal de- Ri j os] met al l qual i f i cat i on

cri t er i a f or t he [ f i r ef i ght er ] posi t i on, yet was deni ed empl oyment .

Compar at i vel y, mal e candi dat es f or t he posi t i on wi t h l ower t est

scor es and qual i f i cat i ons t han [ Gar ayal de- Ri j os] wer e hi r ed. " The

-7-


8/22

EEOC sought t o end Car ol i na' s " unl awf ul pr act i ces by i nf or mal

met hods of conci l i at i on, " at t achi ng a Conci l i at i on Pr oposal t o i t s

Let t er of Det er mi nat i on.

On Febr uary 24, 2011, Carol i na obj ected t o t he EEOC' s

det er mi nat i on. Nonet hel ess, a mont h l at er , dur i ng t he week of

Mar ch 21, 2011, i t of f er ed Gar ayal de- Ri j os t he l ast avai l abl e

f i r ef i ght er posi t i on. Gar ayal de- Ri j os st ar t ed wor k as a

f i r ef i ght er on Apr i l 1, 2011.

B. Post - Hi r e Di scr i mi nat i on and Ret al i at i on

Gar ayal de- Ri j os al l eged she was subj ect ed t o

di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on af t er she was hi r ed because she was

t r eat ed di f f er ent l y t han her mal e col l eagues. The mal e

f i r ef i ght er s al l had appr opr i at el y- si zed uni f or ms and bunker s3 t hat

Car ol i na had pur chased f or t hem. I n cont r ast , Gar ayal de- Ri j os was

f or ced t o shar e wi t h a mal e f i r ef i ght er a uni f or m and bunker t hat

wer e t oo bi g f or her ; t he uni f or mwas t ai l or ed t o hi s measur ement s,

and t he poor f i t compr omi sed her saf ety.

I n addi t i on, she al l eged "[ o] t her di scri mi nat or y and

r et al i at [ or y] t r eat ment . . . r el at ed t o t r ai ni ngs, on t he j ob

assi gned dut i es and comment s per t ai ni ng t o her f i l i ng of t he EEOC

char ge and t he pr esent Compl ai nt . " Thi s t r eat ment occur r ed "wi t h

t he bl essi ng of [ t he Mayor ] . "

3 "Bunker " gear r ef er s t o f i r ef i ght er s' pr ot ecti ve cl ot hi ng.

-8-


9/22

I I .

Garayal de- Ri j os sued Carol i na, t he Mayor , and some of

Car ol i na' s empl oyees f or sex di scri mi nat i on, r et al i at i on, and

negl i gence on Sept ember 26, 2011, wi t hi n ni net y days of havi ng

r ecei ved a r i ght t o sue l et t er on J une 29, 2011. She amended t he

compl ai nt on Mar ch 6, 2012, vol unt ar i l y di smi ssi ng her cl ai ms

agai nst al l named def endant s ot her t han Carol i na and t he Mayor , as

wel l as t he st at e l aw negl i gence cl ai m.

The amended compl ai nt asser t ed sex di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms

under Ti t l e VI I , 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2, and Puer t o Ri co l aw, P. R.

Laws Ann. t i t . 29, 146, 1321, based on Car ol i na' s and t he

Mayor ' s r ef usal t o hi r e Gar ayal de- Ri j os and t hei r di scr i mi nat or y

t r eat ment of her af t er she was hi r ed. She al so al l eged t hat t he

def endant s' post - hi r e conduct const i t ut ed unl awf ul r et al i at i on f or

her EEOC compl ai nt chal l engi ng Car ol i na' s hi r i ng pr ocess, i n

vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I , 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 3, and "Puer t o Ri co Law

115, " P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 29, 194a. Gar ayal de- Ri j os al l eged she

has suf f er ed a l oss of sal ar y and benef i t s, as wel l as ot her

damages, due t o Carol i na and t he Mayor ' s act i ons.

The Mayor f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss t he cl ai ms agai nst

hi m under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) on Mar ch 6, 2012, whi ch

Garayal de- Ri j os never opposed. On August 30, 2012, t he magi st r ate

j udge r ecommended di smi ssi ng wi t h prej udi ce al l of Gar ayal de-

Ri j os' s cl ai ms agai nst t he Mayor i n a Repor t & Recommendat i on ( R &

-9-


10/22

R) . The R & R al er t ed Garayal de- Ri j os t hat she had 14 days t o

obj ect t o i t under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 72( b) ( 2) and t he Di st r i ct of

Puer t o Ri co' s Local Rul e 72( d) , but Gar ayal de- Ri j os di d not f i l e an

obj ect i on.

Carol i na had al so f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss on November

2, 2011, whi ch Garayal de- Ri j os opposed on November 18, 2011.

Because Carol i na' s mot i on t o di smi ss was pendi ng when Garayal de-

Ri j os l ater amended her compl ai nt on March 6, 2012, Carol i na

submi t t ed a memo on March 6, whi ch expl ai ned t hat i t sought t o

di smi ss onl y t he post - hi r e Ti t l e VI I di scri mi nat i on cl ai ms and

anal ogous st at e l aw di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m( Puer t o Ri co' s " Law 100, "

P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 29, 146) agai nst i t . Car ol i na di d not seek

di smi ssal of Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s pr e- hi r e sex di scri mi nat i on cl ai ms.

The memo di d not say t hat Car ol i na sought di smi ssal of t he post -

hi r e r et al i at i on cl ai m, but t he magi st r at e j udge t r eat ed i t as

doi ng so.

On August 30, 2012, t he magi st r at e j udge i ssued a second

R & R, whi ch recommended gr ant i ng Carol i na' s mot i on t o di smi ss t he

post - hi r e Ti t l e VI I cl ai ms and Puer t o Ri co Law 100 cl ai m. The

magi st r at e j udge concl uded that Gar ayal de- Ri j os di d not exhaust

admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es bef or e f i l i ng a Ti t l e VI I di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai m based on Car ol i na' s post - hi r e conduct because t he EEOC

compl ai nt was f i l ed bef ore she was hi r ed and addr essed onl y her

f ai l ur e- t o- hi r e t heor y of l i abi l i t y. He r ecommended di smi ssal of

-10-


11/22

her st at e l aw empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on cl ai mbecause Puer t o Ri co' s

Law 100 does not appl y t o muni ci pal i t i es, such as Car ol i na.

The magi st r at e j udge al so r ecommended di smi ssal of

Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s Ti t l e VI I r et al i at i on cl ai m because she had not

suf f i ci ent l y al l eged a pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on. I n so

concl udi ng, t he magi st r at e j udge er r oneousl y requi r ed Gar ayal de-

Ri j os' s pl eadi ngs t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case at t he mot i on- t o-

di smi ss st age. See Rodr guez- Reyes v. Mol i na- Rodr guez, 711 F. 3d

49, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "The pr i ma f aci e case i s an evi dent i ar y

model , not a pl eadi ng st andar d. " ) .

Gar ayal de- Ri j os obj ect ed t o t he R & R' s anal ysi s of t he

suf f i ci ency of her pl eadi ngs as to her Ti t l e VI I r et al i at i on cl ai m.

However , she di d not obj ect t o the magi st r at e j udge' s r ecommended

di smi ssal of her post- hi r e Ti t l e VI I di scr i mi nat i on c l ai mf or l ack

of exhaust i on.

On Sept ember 25, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he

magi st r at e j udge' s f i ndi ngs and r ecommendat i ons as to both Carol i na

and t he Mayor , gr ant i ng t he def endant s' mot i ons t o di smi ss. The

cour t not ed t hat Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect t o t he R & R

r ecommendi ng di smi ssal of her compl ai nt agai nst t he Mayor "wai ved

t he r i ght t o f ur t her r evi ew of t hat R & R i n t he di st r i ct cour t "

under Davet v. Maccar one, 973 F. 2d 22, 30- 31 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

The di st r i ct cour t al so sua spont e di smi ssed pl ai nt i f f ' s

ent i r e compl ai nt agai nst Car ol i na, i ncl udi ng her pr e- hi r e

-11-


12/22

di scri mi nat i on cl ai ms. I t di d so wi t hout expl anat i on or not i ce t o

t he par t i es even t hough nei t her Car ol i na' s mot i on t o di smi ss nor

t he magi st r at e j udge' s cor r espondi ng R & R encompassed t hese pr e-

hi r e cl ai ms.

On Oct ober 4, 2012, Garayal de- Ri j os moved f or

r econsi der at i on, aski ng t he di st r i ct cour t t o r ei nst at e t he cl ai ms

agai nst Car ol i na t hat i t had sua spont e di smi ssed. ( These i ncl uded

cl ai ms under "Law 69 [ and] Law 115, " Puert o Ri co' s sex- based

empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on and wor kpl ace r et al i at i on st at ut es,

r espect i vel y, and a Ti t l e VI I f ai l ur e- t o- hi r e cl ai m. ) She al so

sought r econsi der at i on of t he di smi ssal of her Ti t l e VI I

r et al i at i on cl ai m agai nst Car ol i na. The di str i ct cour t deni ed

Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s mot i on i n a t ext or der on Febr uar y 25, 2013.

Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

I I I .

Gar ayal de- Ri j os has wai ved r evi ew of sever al cl ai ms on

appeal . We br i ef l y addr ess t he scope of t he wai ver bef or e t ur ni ng

t o those i ssues t hat have been pr eser ved.

A. Wai ver of Cl ai ms Agai nst t he Mayor and Post - Hi reDi scr i mi nat i on Cl ai ms

On appeal , Gar ayal de- Ri j os chal l enges t he di smi ssal of

her pr e- hi r e di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms agai nst t he Mayor . However ,Garayal de- Ri j os never obj ected t o t he R & R addr essi ng t hose

cl ai ms, whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed. That R & R di d not

di st i ngui sh bet ween her pr e- and post - hi r e di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms

-12-


13/22

and r ecommended di smi ss i ng al l of her cl ai ms agai nst t he Mayor . 4

I t al so not i f i ed pl ai nt i f f t hat a f ai l ur e t o obj ect r i sked wai ver .

Because Gar ayal de- Ri j os was gi ven adequat e not i ce, her " f ai l ur e t o

asser t a speci f i c obj ect i on t o [ t he R & R] [ has] i r r et r i evabl y

wai ve[ d] any r i ght t o r evi ew by t he di st r i ct cour t and t h[ i s] cour t

of appeal s. " 5 Cor t s- Ri ver a v. Dep' t of Cor r . & Rehab. of P. R. ,

626 F. 3d 21, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Sant i ago v. Canon U. S. A. ,

I nc. , 138 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) .

Si mi l ar l y, Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect

speci f i cal l y t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s r ecommendat i on t hat her

post- hi r e Ti t l e VI I di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m agai nst Car ol i na be

di smi ssed f or l ack of exhaust i on of admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es wai ves

her r i ght t o t hi s cour t ' s r evi ew of t hat cl ai m. I n f act, t he

4 The magi st r ate j udge r ecommended di smi ssi ng t he Ti t l e VI Icl ai ms agai nst t he Mayor because t he f ederal st atut e does noti mpose l i abi l i t y on i ndi vi dual s.

As t o Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s st at e l aw cl ai ms, t he magi st r at ej udge concl uded t hat Puer t o Ri co l aw i mposes i ndi vi dual l i abi l i t yonl y on super vi sors who di r ect l y and per sonal l y commi t t he al l egedact s of di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on. He r easoned t hatGar ayal de- Ri j os ' s al l egat i ons f ai l ed t o stat e a cl ai m of di scr i mi nat i on agai nst t he Mayor because t hey sai d onl y t hat herl et t er s t o t he Mayor r egar di ng her appl i cat i on went unanswer ed. Heal so f ound t he cl ai m t hat t he post - hi r i ng di scri mi nat or y and

r et al i at or y conduct had occur r ed "wi t h t he bl essi ng of [ t he Mayor ] "was " mer el y concl usor y" and so was i nsuf f i ci ent t o st at e apl ausi bl e cl ai m.

5 At or al ar gument , Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s at t or ney conceded t hather argument s agai nst t he Mayor are wai ved i f t he R & R addr essedal l of t he cl ai ms agai nst t he Mayor , whi ch i t di d.

-13-


14/22

absence of any devel oped argument on appeal as t o t hi s

di scri mi nat i on cl ai mconst i t ut es doubl e def aul t . Cf . Uni t ed St at es

v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . 6 However , we not e t hat

t he same f act ual al l egat i ons t hat f or m t he basi s of Gar ayal de-

Ri j os' s post - hi r e di scr i mi nat i on cl ai mal so suppor t her r et al i at i on

cl ai m; her wai ver as t o t he f or mer i n no way rest r i ct s our r evi ew

of t he l at t er . 7

We addr ess bel ow Garayal de- Ri j os' s argument s concerni ng

t he di smi ssal of t he pr e- hi r e di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms and post - hi r e

r et al i at i on cl ai ms agai nst Car ol i na.

B. The Di st r i ct Cour t ' s Sua Spont e Di smi ssal of Garayal de-Ri j os' s Compl ai nt

We r evi ew de novo a di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of a

compl ai nt f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. Gar c a- Cat al n v. Uni t ed

St at es, 734 F. 3d 100, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t sua spont e di smi ssed Gar ayal de-Ri j os' s ent i r e compl ai nt i n one sent ence al t hough Car ol i na di d not

seek t hat r el i ef and had moved t o di smi ss onl y a subset of t he

6 We do not underst and Garayal de- Ri j os t o chal l enge t hedi smi ssal of her Puert o Ri co Law 100 empl oyment di scr i mi nat i oncl ai m agai nst Car ol i na gi ven t hat her br i ef makes no ar gument s norr equest s any r el i ef on t hi s gr ound. I n any event , we deem t hi scl ai m wai ved.

7 The R & R cor r ect l y st at ed t hat a separ at e r et al i at i oncl ai m need not be f i l ed wi t h t he EEOC t o exhaust admi ni st r at i ver emedi es. Cl ockedi l e v. N. H. Dep' t of Cor r . , 245 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1stCi r . 2001) ( "[ Ti t l e VI I ] r et al i at i on cl ai ms ar e pr eser ved so l ongas t he r et al i at i on i s r easonabl y rel at ed t o and gr ows out of t hedi scr i mi nat i on compl ai ned of t o t he agency . . . . ") .

-14-


15/22

cl ai ms asser t ed agai nst i t . Nor di d t he R & R, whi ch t he di st r i ct

cour t adopt ed, addr ess t he pr e- hi r e di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms ( under

Ti t l e VI I and Puer t o Ri co Law 69) and r et al i at i on cl ai m ( Puer t o

Ri co Law 115) t hat Car ol i na had not moved t o di smi ss. The di st r i ct

cour t l at er deni ed Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s r equest t hat i t r ei nst at e

t hese cl ai ms. The sua spont e di smi ssal of t hese cl ai ms, wi t hout

expl anat i on or not i ce, was er r or .

"Sua spont e di smi ssal s are st r ong medi ci ne, and shoul d be

di spensed spar i ngl y. " Chut e v. Wal ker , 281 F. 3d 314, 319 ( 1st Ci r .

2002) ( quot i ng Gonzal es- Gonzal ez v. Uni t ed St ates, 257 F. 3d 31, 33

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The gener al

r ul e i s t hat sua spont e di smi ssal s of compl ai nt s under Rul e

12( b) ( 6) ar e "er r oneous unl ess t he par t i es have been af f or ded

not i ce and an opport uni t y t o amend t he compl ai nt or otherwi se

r espond. " Fut ur a Dev. of P. R. , I nc. v. Est ado Li br e Asoci ado de

P. R. , 144 F. 3d 7, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . Onl y wher e "i t i s cr yst al

cl ear t hat t he pl ai nt i f f cannot pr evai l and t hat amendi ng t he

compl ai nt woul d be f ut i l e" can a sua spont e Rul e 12( b) ( 6) di smi ssal

st and. Chut e, 281 F. 3d at 319 ( quot i ng Gonzal es- Gonzal ez, 257 F. 3d

at 37) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . "The par t y def endi ng t he

di smi ssal must show t hat ' t he al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he

compl ai nt , t aken i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f , ar e

pat ent l y mer i t l ess and beyond al l hope of r edempt i on. ' " I d.

( quot i ng Gonzal ez- Gonzal ez, 257 F. 3d at 37) .

-15-


16/22

Carol i na has not at t empt ed t o meet t hi s bur den, nor coul d

i t . See i d. at 319- 20 ( r ever si ng di st r i ct cour t ' s cur sor y, sua

spont e di smi ssal of pl ai nt i f f ' s compl ai nt f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a

cl ai mwi t hout gi vi ng t he par t i es an oppor t uni t y t o r espond) ; Fut ur a

Dev. of P. R. , I nc. , 144 F. 3d at 14 ( same) .

I n addi t i on, we r ej ect Car ol i na' s r equest t hat we af f i r m

t he di s t r i ct court ' s di smi ssal of pl ai nt i f f ' s f ai l ure- t o- hi re Ti t l e

VI I cl ai m on t he asser t ed al t er nat e gr ounds t hat t he cl ai m wi l l

f ai l on r emand. Car ol i na ar gues t hat Gar ayal de- Ri j os wi l l not be

abl e t o pr ove di scr i mi nat i on i n i t s hi r i ng pr ocess because she was

i n f act hi r ed f or one of ei ght posi t i ons t o whi ch she appl i ed.

Car ol i na cont ends t hat at most Gar ayal de- Ri j os compl ai ns of a del ay

i n hi r i ng, and Ti t l e VI I does not ent i t l e her t o get hi r ed i n any

par t i cul ar or der .

Car ol i na' s argument i gnor es t hat t hi s case i s on appeal

at t he mot i on- t o- di smi ss st age. Pl ai nt i f f must al l ege onl y

"suf f i ci ent f act ual mat t er t o stat e a cl ai m t o r el i ef t hat i s

pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. " Gr aj al es v. P. R. Por t s Aut h. , 682 F. 3d 40,

44 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Kat z v. Per shi ng, LLC, 672 F. 3d 64, 72-

73 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . "A cl ai m

has f aci al pl ausi bi l i t y when t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f actual cont ent

t hat al l ows t he cour t t o dr aw t he reasonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he

def endant i s l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. " Ashcr of t v.

I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009) .

-16-


17/22

The cl ai ms asser t ed pl ai nl y meet t he pl ausi bi l i t y

st andar d. Ti t l e VI I makes i t unl awf ul f or an empl oyer t o "f ai l or

r ef use t o hi r e . . . any i ndi vi dual , or ot her wi se t o di scr i mi nat e

agai nst any i ndi vi dual wi t h r espect t o [her ] compensat i on, t er ms,

condi t i ons, or pr i vi l eges of empl oyment , because of such

i ndi vi dual ' s . . . sex. " 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2( a) ( 1) ( emphases

added) . I t i s not di f f i cul t t o i nf er r easonabl y f r om her f actual

al l egat i ons t hat t he r eason Car ol i na f ai l ed t o hi r e Gar ayal de- Ri j os

f or any of t he f i r st seven vacanci es was her gender . The f act t hat

Garayal de- Ri j os was event ual l y hi r ed does not mean t here was not

unl awf ul di scri mi nat i on i n t he hi r i ng deci si ons f or t he f i r st seven

f i r ef i ght er pos i t i ons.

Here, Garayal de- Ri j os al l eged she was t he onl y woman t o

appl y f or t he f i r ef i ght er posi t i ons and she had t he hi ghest scor e

of al l of t he appl i cant s based on Car ol i na' s eval uat i on of t hei r

"academi c pr eparat i on, exper i ence, and [ per f ormance on] physi cal

t est s. " Al t hough Gar ayal de- Ri j os al l eges she was t he most

qual i f i ed candi dat e, Car ol i na f i l l ed t he f i r st seven vacanci es wi t h

mal e candi dat es bet ween J une/ J ul y and December of 2010. I n

cont r ast , Car ol i na di d not of f er Gar ayal de- Ri j os a posi t i on unt i l

t he l ast week of March 2011 and onl y af t er t he EEOC, an i ndependent

body, r evi ewed t hese f act s and concl uded t hat Carol i na had

di scri mi nat ed agai nst Gar ayal de- Ri j os i n i t s hi r i ng pr ocess.

Dur i ng t he l engt hy, ei ght - mont h del ay bef or e Gar ayal de- Ri j os was

-17-


18/22

hi r ed, she was deni ed sal ary and other val uabl e empl oyment benef i t s

t hat al l egedl y l ess qual i f i ed candi dat es wer e r ecei vi ng.

Gi ven t hese f act ual al l egat i ons, i t i s r easonabl e t o

i nf er t hat Car ol i na r ef used t o hi r e Gar ayal de- Ri j os ( seven t i mes)

because she was a woman, even t hough she was t he most qual i f i ed

candi dat e, and t hat Car ol i na hi r ed Gar ayal de- Ri j os mont hs l at er

onl y because of t he adver se EEOC det ermi nat i on. These al l egat i ons

st at e a pl ausi bl e cl ai m of sex di scr i mi nat i on under Ti t l e VI I ,

i ncl udi ng f or damages based on Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s cl ai m t hat she

woul d have been hi r ed mont hs ear l i er absent any di scr i mi nat i on.

C. The Di st r i ct Cour t ' s Di smi ssal of Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s Ti t l eVI I Ret al i at i on Cl ai m f or Fai l ur e t o St at e a Cl ai m

Ti t l e VI I bar s empl oyer s f r om r et al i at i ng agai nst an

appl i cant or empl oyee because she "has opposed any pract i ce made an

unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce by t hi s subchapt er , or because [ s] he

has made a char ge, t est i f i ed, assi st ed, or par t i ci pat ed i n anymanner i n an i nvest i gat i on, pr oceedi ng, or hear i ng under t hi s

subchapt er . " 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 3( a) . To est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e

case of r et al i at i on, a pl ai nt i f f must show: ( 1) she engaged i n

pr otected conduct ; ( 2) she suf f ered an adver se empl oyment act i on;

and ( 3) t hat a "causal nexus exi st s bet ween the pr ot ect ed [ conduct ]

and t he adver se act i on. " Pont e v. St eel case I nc. , 741 F. 3d 310,321 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; i d. ( not i ng t hat pl ai nt i f f must pr ove but - f or

causat i on ( ci t i ng Uni v. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ct r . v. Nassar , 133 S. Ct .

2517, 2534 ( 2013) ) ) .

-18-


19/22

The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s

compl ai nt f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m of r et al i at i on because she had

not suf f i ci ent l y al l eged a pr i ma f aci e case. The cour t det er mi ned

t hat she had adequat el y pl eaded t he f i r st t wo pr ongs gi ven

al l egat i ons t hat she: ( 1) had f i l ed an EEOC compl ai nt al l egi ng sex

di scr i mi nat i on; and ( 2) suf f er ed a mat er i al har m af t er she was

hi r ed as t he onl y f i r ef i ght er deni ed a pr ot ect i ve uni f or m and

bunker t hat were t ai l ored t o her measur ement s and so saf e. The

cour t hel d t hat her " r et al i at i on cl ai m f ai l s at t he l ast

pr ong, however , because she has not suf f i ci ent l y al l eged a causal

connect i on bet ween her prot ect ed conduct and t he adver se empl oyment

act i on. " The di st r i ct cour t made at l east t hr ee er r or s.

Fi r st , t he di st r i ct cour t f aul t ed Gar ayal de- Ri j os f or not

st at i ng speci f i c f act s t hat "connect " t he al l eged mi st r eat ment

af t er she was hi r ed t o t he f i l i ng of her EEOC compl ai nt . I n so

doi ng, t he di st r i ct cour t t r eat ed t he pr i ma f aci e case, "a f l exi bl e

evi dent i ar y standar d, " as a "r i gi d pl eadi ng st andar d, " Swi er ki ewi cz

v. Sor ema N. A. , 534 U. S. 506, 512 ( 2002) , r equi r i ng Gar ayal de- Ri j os

t o est abl i sh each pr ong of t he pr i ma f aci e case to sur vi ve a mot i on

t o di smi ss. Thi s was an er r or of l aw.

We have expl i ci t l y hel d t hat pl ai nt i f f s need not pl ead

f act s i n t he compl ai nt t hat est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case under

Ti t l e VI I nor must t hey "al l ege ever y f act necessar y t o wi n at

t r i al . " Rodr guez- Vi ves v. P. R. Fi r ef i ght er s Cor ps of P. R. , ___

-19-


20/22

F. 3d __ _, 2014 WL 593673, at *3 (1st Ci r . Feb. 18, 2014) ( r ever si ng

Rul e 12( b) ( 6) di smi ssal of f emal e f i r ef i ght er ' s Ti t l e VI I

r et al i at i on cl ai m) ; Rodr guez- Reyes, 711 F. 3d at 54. The

pl ausi bi l i t y st andar d gover ns on a mot i on t o di smi ss. So, "[ n] o

si ngl e al l egat i on need [ est abl i sh] . . . some necessary el ement [ of

t he cause of act i on] , pr ovi ded t hat , i n sum, t he al l egat i ons of t he

compl ai nt make t he cl ai m as a whol e at l east pl ausi bl e. " Ocasi o-

Her nndez v. For t uo- Bur set , 640 F. 3d 1, 14- 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

The di st r i ct cour t al so er r ed when i t f ound Gar ayal de-

Ri j os' s pl eadi ngs i nadequat e due t o i t s vi ew t hat al l eged causat i on

f or r et al i at i on must be deemed i mpl ausi bl e based sol el y on a f i ve-

mont h per i od bet ween t he pr ot ect ed conduct and adver se empl oyment

act i on. Speci f i cal l y, t he cour t concl uded t hat Gar ayal de- Ri j os

coul d not r el y on " t empor al pr oxi mi t y" t o "est abl i sh causat i on"

because t he f i ve- mont h gap bet ween t he November 1, 2010 f i l i ng of

t he EEOC compl ai nt and Apr i l 1, 2011, when t he al l eged post - hi r e

r et al i at i on st ar t ed, was t oo l ong. However , " t empor al pr oxi mi t y"

i s mer el y one f act or r el evant t o causat i on and usual l y onl y l at er

i n t he proceedi ngs, f or exampl e at summary j udgment . 8 See, e. g. ,

8 The par t i es have di r ect ed us t o no case di smi ssi ng a Ti t l eVI I r et al i at i on cl ai munder Rul e 12( b) ( 6) ut i l i zi ng onl y a t empor al

anal ysi s t o def eat causat i on al l egat i ons. Once a compl ai nt hasal l eged enough f act s t hat r et al i at i on f or pr ot ect ed conduct i spl ausi bl e, t he pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o pr oceed t o di scover y.Rodr guez- Vi ves, 2014 WL 593673, at *6. And di scovery mi ghtunear t h evi dence of r etal i at i on such t hat at summary j udgment ort r i al , t he pl ai nt i f f wi l l not have t o r el y heavi l y on t he "t empor alpr oxi mi t y" between pr otected conduct and adver se act i ons t o pr ove

-20-


21/22

Tr ai nor v. HEI Hospi t al i t y, LLC, 699 F. 3d 19, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( t r eat i ng " t emporal pr oxi mi t y" between adver se empl oyment act i on

and pr ot ect ed conduct as j ust one f act or , " r ei nf or ced by ot her

evi dence, " t hat suppor t ed a j ur y ver di ct of r et al i at i on) ; Snchez-

Rodr guez v. AT&T Mobi l i t y P. R. , I nc. , 673 F. 3d 1, 15 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ( not i ng t hat evi dence of cl ose "t empor al pr oxi mi t y" can hel p

est abl i sh causat i on pr ong of pr i ma f aci e case at summary j udgment ) ;

Cal er o- Cer ezo v. U. S. Dep' t of J ust i ce, 355 F. 3d 6, 25 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ( same) . 9 We do not r ul e out t hat some pl eadi ngs may al l ege

a t empor al gap so at t enuat ed as not t o meet t he pl ausi bi l i t y

st andar d f or sur vi vi ng mot i ons t o di smi ss, but t hi s case i s a f ar

cry fromthat.

Beyond t hat , t he t empor al anal ysi s here i s f l awed. The

cour t ' s r ot e eval uat i on of t he t i me l ag f ai l ed t o r ead Gar ayal de-

Ri j os' s compl ai nt hol i st i cal l y and i gnor ed r el evant cont ext . See

Br aden v. Wal - Mar t St or es, I nc. , 588 F. 3d 585, 594 ( 8t h Ci r . 2009)

( expl ai ni ng t hat t he compl ai nt shoul d be r ead i n i t s ent i r et y and

"not par sed pi ece by pi ece t o det er mi ne whet her each al l egat i on, i n

i sol at i on, i s pl ausi bl e") . I n f act , t he post- hi r e adver se

her case. See Swi er ki ewi cz, 534 U. S. at 511- 12.

9 The cases on whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t empor al anal ysi sof causat i on r el i ed wer e on appeal f r om a gr ant of summar yj udgment , not a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) di smi ssal . See Cal er o- Cer ezo, 355F. 3d 6. I n addi t i on, al l of t he cases t hat Car ol i na ci t es t osuppor t t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t empor al anal ysi s i nvol ve summar yj udgment , not mot i ons t o di smi ss.

-21-


22/22

t r eat ment occur r ed onl y weeks af t er t he EEOC f i ndi ng and t he

deci si on t o hi r e her .

A more common- sense, pl ausi bl e r eadi ng of Garayal de-

Ri j os' s compl ai nt i s t hat t he post - hi r e mi st r eat ment was i n

r et al i at i on f or Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s pr e- hi r e EEOC compl ai nt of sex

di scri mi nat i on. Gar ayal de- Ri j os al l eged f act s t hat suggest : ( 1)

Car ol i na r el uct ant l y hi r ed her onl y af t er t he EEOC had det er mi ned

t hat Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s compl ai nt of sex di scr i mi nat i on was l i kel y

mer i t or i ous; and ( 2) as soon as Gar ayal de- Ri j os st ar t ed wor ki ng,

Carol i na t r eat ed her unequal l y compared t o her mal e count erpart s

and i n a way t hat r i sked her saf et y. The di st r i ct cour t err ed i n

i gnor i ng Gar ayal de- Ri j os' s al l egat i ons of pr e- hi r e di scri mi nat i on,

whi ch set t he st age f or t he pl ausi bi l i t y of her post - hi r e

r et al i at i on cl ai m. I ndeed, si nce t he hi r i ng dat e was i n t he

cont r ol of Car ol i na, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s anal ysi s t hr eat ens to

r ewar d def endant s who cont i nue t o pr act i ce di scr i mi nat i on i n hi r i ng

and t hen engage i n post - hi r i ng r et al i at i on.

I V.

We rever se t he di smi ssal of t he cl ai ms agai nst Car ol i na

as t o t he Ti t l e VI I f ai l ur e- t o- hi r e and r et al i at i on cl ai ms and

pendent st ate l aw cl ai ms ( P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 29, 194a and

1321) . We di smi ss t he appeal i nsof ar as i t r el at es t o t he wai ved

cl ai ms agai nst t he Mayor and the post - hi r e di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m

agai nst Car ol i na. Cost s ar e assessed agai nst Car ol i na.

-22-

Documents

Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina, 1st Cir. (2014)