Gonzalez-Lopez v. State Industrial Prod. Corp., No. 19-1439 (1st Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1439 MIGUEL GONZALEZ-LOPEZ, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION; STATE CHEMICAL SALES COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendants, Appellees, and JOHN DOE; JANE ROE; INSURANCE COMPANIES A, B, AND C, Defendants. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Selya, and Lipez, Circuit Judges. Carlos R. Paula, with whom Jaime E. Picó-Rodríguez and Labor Counsels, LLC were on brief, for appellant. Mariela Rexach-Rexach, with whom Shiara Diloné-Fernández, Ana Beatriz Rivera-Beltrán, and Schuster Aguiló LLC were on brief, for appellees. November 10, 2020 LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This court affirms on the careful reasoning set forth in the district court opinion. Gonzalez-Lopez v. State Indus. Prod. Corp., No. 16-2710 (GAG), 2019 WL 8370884, (D.P.R. Mar. 20, 2019); see 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). We add only a few comments. 1. As to plaintiff's assertion that he presented direct evidence, the district court correctly concluded that there was no direct evidence timely claims. 2. of discrimination related to the plaintiff's See Gonzalez-Lopez, 2019 WL 8370884, at *12. As to the plaintiff's attempt to use the continuing violation doctrine to tie the untimely actions he complains of to the timely actions, the argument is without merit. It is clear under National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113-15 (2002), that each of the untimely actions was a discrete action, the consequences of which should have been evident to the plaintiff at the time, and the district court was correct in concluding that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply. Id.; see also Gonzalez-Lopez, 2019 WL 8370884, at *8-*10. 3. As the district court found, insufficient evidence of disparate impact. there was also Gonzalez-Lopez, 2019 WL 8370884, at *10-*11. 4. The appellees are correct that any possible claim of a pattern and practice of discrimination was waived. It was not presented to the district court and it was insufficiently developed - 3 - on appeal. See Rosaura Bldg. Corp. v. Mun. of Mayagüez, 778 F.3d 55, 63 (1st Cir. 2015) ("[A]rguments not advanced before the district court are waived."); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (reiterating "the settled appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived"). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
