Arroyo-Perez v. Demir Group International et al, No. 3:2009cv02231 - Document 33 (D.P.R. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part re 11 MOTION to dismiss Counts I and III of the Complaint as to Haygo Demir filed by Haygo Demir Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Justo Arenas on 8/16/2010.(nydi)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 3 4 5 EUNICE ARROYO-Pà REZ, Plaintiff 6 7 v. 8 DEMIR GROUP INTERNATIONAL aka DGI GROUP; and HAYGO DEMIR aka HAYGO DEMIRIAN, 9 CIVIL 09-2231 (JA) 10 11 12 Defendants OPINION AND ORDER 13 14 On December 9, 2009, plaintiff Eunice Arroyo-Pérez filed a complaint 15 alleging discrimination based on her pregnancy and gender under federal law, 16 discrimination under commonwealth law, and retaliation under both federal and 17 18 commonwealth law, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 19 amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., P.R. Act No. 115 of December 20, 1991, 20 P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 194a(a), and Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico 21 22 Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, §§ 5101 and 5102. Aside from seeking 23 damages pursuant to the Puerto Rico civil code tort statute, plaintiff also seeks 24 injunctive and declaratory relief. 25 26 On March 11, 2010, co-defendant Haygo Demir aka Haygo Demirian moved 27 to dismiss Count I and Count III of the complaint. (Docket No. 11.) He alleges 28 in a nutshell that there is no individual liability under Title VII, nor that there is 29 individual liability under Puerto Rico Law 115, relying on Fantini v. Salem State 1 CIVIL 09-2231 (JA) 2 2 3 4 Coll., 557 F.3d 22, 28-31 (1st Cir. 2009) and Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 5 F.3d 423, 431 (1st Cir. 2010). (Docket No. 11, at 5.) On March 12, 2010, 6 plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss in its entirety. (Docket No. 7 8 16.) Co-defendant Demir Group International filed an answer to the complaint on 9 March 15, 2010. (Docket No. 18.) 10 On May 14, 2010, the court entered a case management order part of 11 12 which contained a notation that [b]y June 4, 2010, the parties will file a motion 13 stating whether they consent to have this case assigned to a United States 14 Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings and entry of judgment . . . . [A]ny 15 16 party s failure to comply with this order within 30 days will be considered implicit 17 consent to try the case before that magistrate judge. See Roell v. Withrow, 538 18 U.S. 580, 590 (2003). (Docket No. 24, at 19-20.) Nothing was filed in the case 19 20 until June 21, 2010. On that date, the court entered an order which reads in part, 21 the Court will consider [the parties ] silence as an implied consent to full 22 magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 25.) Two days later, the case was 23 24 randomly assigned to me by the Clerk for all further proceedings. (Docket No. 25 26.) 26 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 27 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for the dismissal of an action 29 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 CIVIL 09-2231 (JA) 3 2 3 4 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient 5 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 7 8 9 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 5[4]7 (2007)). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 11 12 the misconduct alleged. Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 13 Determining if a claim is plausible is a context-specific task that requires the 14 reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 15 16 1950 (citing Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 17 cause remanded, 129 S. Ct. 2430 (2009)) . 18 Further, [i]n ruling upon a [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6) 19 20 motion, the court must accept as true all the well-pleaded factual allegations in 21 the complaint and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. 22 Marrero-Gutiérrez v. Molina, 447 F. Supp. 2d 168, 172 (D.P.R. 2006) (citing Perry 23 24 v. New England Bus. Serv., Inc., 347 F.3d 343, 344 (1st Cir. 2003)). However, 25 the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a 26 complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements 27 28 of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. 29 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 1 CIVIL 09-2231 (JA) 4 2 3 4 at 555). In a situation where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to 5 infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but 6 it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 1950 (quoting 7 8 Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). With this post Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) 9 standard in mind, I consider the two-prong assault by Haygo Demir aka Haygo 10 Demirian. 11 II. ANALYSIS 12 13 14 A. Title VII Personal Liability Last year, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that there 15 16 is no personal liability under Title VII. Fantini v. Salem State Coll., 557 F.3d at 17 28-32, cited in López-Méndez v. Lexmark Int l, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 66, 69-70 18 (D.P.R.2009); see Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 F.3d at 431. However, 19 20 plaintiff argues that there should be individual liability under Title VII, that there 21 is no definitive ruling from the United States Supreme Court on the matter, and 22 that the better reasoning holding individual s responsible under Title VII, is 23 24 exhibited by other courts within this circuit. See Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc., 929 F. 25 Supp. 562, 571-72 (D.R.I. 1996); Weeks v. State of Maine, 871 F. Supp. 515, 26 516-17 (D. Me. 1994), and Douglas v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of N. New England, 27 28 29 Inc., 855 F. Supp. 518, 518-20 (D.N.H. 1994). 1 CIVIL 09-2231 (JA) 5 2 3 4 While these pre-Fantini district court cases may have the scent of common 5 sense and solid reasoning, precedence dictates my ruling as to Count I of the 6 complaint. See Mercado v. Cooperativa de Seguros de Vida de P.R., F. Supp. 7 8 2d 9 10 , 2010 WL 2989850, at * 4 (D.P.R. July 7, 2010); Ventura v. Hanichak, F. Supp. 2d , 2010 WL 2545602, at *3 (D. Mass. June 18, 2010). Therefore, the cause of action related to pregnancy and gender discrimination in 11 12 relation to Haygo Demir aka Haygo Demirian is dismissed. Because the matter 13 is subject to debate among the circuits, a partial judgment will not issue in 14 relation to the dismissal of the first cause of action. See Díaz-Reyes v. Fuentes 15 16 Ortiz, 471 F.3d 299, 301 (1st Cir. 2006). 17 B. 18 Law 115 Personal Liability Haygo Demir aka Haygo Demirian argues that there is no individual liability 19 20 for a violation of the Puerto Rico whistle blower s act under Law 115. He relies on 21 Maldonado v. Hosp. Alejandro Otero López, 614 F. Supp. 2d 181, 197 (D.P.R. 22 2009), a case adopting an opinion of the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals which 23 24 concluded that Law 115 contains no provision imposing personal liability. Vargas 25 Santiago v. Lilliam à lvarez Moore, No. DPE-2004-0541, 2006 WL 3694659, at *5 26 (T.C.A. Nov. 29, 2006). Plaintiff retorts that in Rosario v. Distribuidora Kikuet, 27 28 Inc., 151 D.P.R. 634, 647 (2000), the Court held that an individual who engages 29 in discriminatory acts is liable in his personal capacity under Laws 17, 69 and 100. 1 CIVIL 09-2231 (JA) 6 2 3 4 Plaintiff also cites a case from this court espousing a view opposing that of 5 Maldonado. See Hernández v. Raytheon Serv. Co. P.R., 2006 WL 1737167 (Apr. 6 27, 2006) (stating that Law 115 includes personal liability of a retaliating 7 8 supervisor). Given the more liberal nature of Puerto Rico employment laws, in 9 terms of their expansive and generous nature, clear statutory language, and 10 because the complaint contains sufficient factual matter which, if accepted as true, 11 12 states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, I adopt the reasoning of 13 Hernández v. Raytheon Serv. Co. P.R. and deny the motion to dismiss the 14 supplemental claim. Cf. Otero-Merced v. Preferred Health Inc., 680 F. Supp. 2d 15 16 388, 393 (D.P.R. 2010); Cora-Reyes v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., slip op. 17 2010 WL 2670872, at *7-8 (D.P.R. July 1, 2010); Rodríguez v. Andamios de P.R., 18 Inc., slip op. 2009 WL 1361957, at *10 (D.P.R. May 8, 2009). Therefore, the 19 20 motion to dismiss the third cause of action based on individual liability under Law 21 115 is denied. 22 Haygo Demir aka Haygo Demirian is directed to answer the complaint. 23 24 25 26 III. CONCLUSION The motion to dismiss the first cause of action is granted. The motion to dismiss the third cause of action is denied. 27 28 29 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this day 16th day of August, 2009. S/ JUSTO ARENAS Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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.