Cabrera-Ruiz et al v. Rocket Learning, Inc. et al, No. 3:2010cv01865 - Document 31 (D.P.R. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 13 Motion to Dismiss as to All Defendants filed by Jaime Pales, Hiram Perez, Brenda Perez. Plaintiffs' claims against Movants as defendants in their individual capacity under ADEA, PRWACA, and Law 80 are hereby DISMISSED. The court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Commonwealth causes of action against all individual codefendants, in addition to the ADEA cause of action against Rocket Learning. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 5/11/2011.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO FERDINAND CABRERA-RUIZ and JANET CABRERA-RUIZ, 5 6 Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) Plaintiffs, v. 7 8 9 10 11 ROCKET LEARNING, INC., JAIME PALES, HIRAM PEREZ, and BRENDA PEREZ. Defendants. 12 13 OPINION AND ORDER 14 Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants alleging age discrimination and retaliation 15 in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( ADEA ), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 634. 16 (Docket No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiffs also bring supplemental claims under various Commonwealth 17 statutes, including Puerto Rico Law 80 ( Law 80 ), 29 L.P.R.A. § 185; Puerto Rico Law 100 18 ( Law 100 ), 29 L.P.R.A. § 146; Puerto Rico Law 115 ( Law 115 ), 29 L.P.R.A. § 194; and 19 the Puerto Rico Workmen's Accident Compensation Act ( PRWACA ), 11 L.P.R.A. §§ 1 42. 20 (Id.) Defendant Rocket Learning ( Rocket Learning ) answers. (Docket No. 12.) The 21 individual defendants ( Movants ) move to dismiss the claims against Movants in their personal 22 capacity under ADEA, PRWACA, and Law 80. (Docket No. 13.) Plaintiffs oppose, Docket 23 No.15, and Movants reply, Docket No. 17. Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) -2- 1 I. 2 Factual Synopsis 3 We derive the following facts from the parties pleadings and motions. (Docket Nos. 1; 4 12; 13; 17.) Plaintiff Ferdinand Cabrera-Ruiz ( Ferdinand Cabrera ) worked for Rocket 5 Learning from February 2005 until May 2009. (Docket No. 1 at 3, 7.) Janet Cabrera-Ruiz 6 ( Janet Cabrera ) also worked for Rocket Learning from August 2005 until May 2009. (Id. at 7 7, 12.) Plaintiffs have sued Movants in their individual capacity, naming as defendants Hiram 8 Pérez, Rocket Learning s chief executive officer, Brenda Pérez, Plaintiffs supervisor, and 9 Jaime Palés, president of Rocket Learning. (Docket No. 12 at 1 2.) 10 Ferdinand Cabrera was born in 1965 and was forty-four years old on the date he 11 resigned. (Docket No. 1 at 3.) He alleges that Defendants forced him to travel farther to work 12 than other employees, made negative comments about his age, and transferred him to an 13 underperforming office. (Id. at 3 6.) He also alleges that Defendants failed to pay him his 14 summer commission after he reported to the State Insurance Fund ( SIF ) and was placed 15 in rest for headaches, neck and back pain, weariness, insomnia, and depression. (Id. at 6.) 16 Janet Cabrera was born in 1968 and was forty-one at the time of her resignation. (Id. at 17 7.) She also alleges that discriminatory animus prompted Defendants to deny her a promotion, 18 to pay her less than younger employees, and to threaten retaliation in the form of discharge 19 when she complained about the discriminatory treatment. (Id. at 7 10.) She also alleges that 20 she was forced to report to the SIF for medical treatment stemming from the alleged Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) -3- 1 discrimination and that she subsequently suffered retaliation in the form of a defamation 2 campaign by Defendants. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiffs both allege in their complaint that Defendants 3 discriminatory actions effectively forced them to resign from their positions. (Id. at 7, 12.) 4 II. 5 Rule 12(b)(6) Standard 6 While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must nonetheless 7 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 8 its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1940 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 9 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint comprised of naked assertions without further 10 facual elaboration fails this facial plausibility requirement, which demands more than a sheer 11 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. at 1945 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 12 557). A complaint fails to demonstrate a plausible entitlement to relief if it does not set forth 13 supporting factual allegations pertaining to each material element of the claim. Gagliardi v. 14 Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301, 305 (1st Cir. 2008). 15 Guided by this rubric, a party may move to dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim 16 upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In this analysis, the court accepts 17 all well-pleaded facts as true, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving 18 party. SEC v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 442 (1st Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, an unadorned, 19 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation fails to show a plausible entitlement to relief. 20 Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) -4- 1 III. 2 Analysis 3 A. ADEA 4 Movants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against individual defendants under 5 ADEA. (Docket No. 13.) While neither the United States Supreme Court nor the First Circuit 6 has addressed the question of an individual s liability under ADEA, the courts of this district 7 have repeatedly held that [such individual] liability does not exist. Mercado v. Cooperativa 8 de Seguros de Vida, 726 F. Supp. 2d 96, 101 (D.P.R. 2010); see also Rivera-Tirado v. Autoridad 9 de Energia Electrica, 663 F. Supp. 2d 36, 40 41 (D.P.R. 2009); Vizcarrondo v. Bd. of Trs., 139 10 F.Supp.2d 198, 205 (D.P.R. 2001). Plaintiffs cannot obtain ADEA relief against Movants in 11 their individual capacities. 12 B. PRWACA 13 Movants argue that Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim under PRWACA. We 14 agree. PRWACA was designed to act as the exclusive remedy for certain injured workers, and 15 it established a compulsory insurance scheme providing medical treatment, payment of benefits 16 and disability compensation through the SIF to assist employees affected by work-related 17 accidents or otherwise suffering from health conditions related to their employment. Feliciano 18 Rolon v. Ortho Biologics LLC, 404 F. Supp. 2d 409, 413 414 (D.P.R. 2005). 19 Normally, the PRWACA compensation scheme prevents injured employees from seeking 20 recovery through a civil suit against their employer. Lusson v. Carter, 704 F.2d 646, 651 (1st Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) -5- 1 Cir. 1983). The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has, however, created an exception to an 2 employer s PRWACA immunity; intentional or discriminatory acts foreign to the nature of the 3 employment such as age discrimination are not covered by the PRWACA, and employees 4 may seek redress through a civil suit under the ADEA or Commonwealth discrimination laws.1 5 Odriozola v. Superior Cosmetic Distribs. Corp., 16 P.R. Offic. Trans. 595, 614 615 (1985); see 6 also Rivera-Flores v. P.R. Tel. Co., 840 F. Supp. 3, 6 (D.P.R. 1993) (restating exception to 7 PRWACA s exclusive coverage for employer s intentional discrimination), rev d on other 8 grounds, 64 F.3d 742 (1st Cir. 1995). 9 Plaintiffs mischaracterize the effort their PRWACA claims as an effort to dismiss 10 Plaintiff s retaliation claim, and fail to clarify their purpose in alleging a violation of Law 45. 11 (Docket No. 15 at 4.) We find Plaintiffs allegations of PRWACA violations do not state a claim 12 upon which relief can be granted, since injuries stemming from intentional or discriminatory 13 acts in the workplace are not compensable under the PRWACA scheme. 14 C. Law 80 15 Law 80 protects employees from discharge without just cause, and provides a remedy 16 based on recovery of lost wages from the employer. See 29 L.P.R.A. § 185. The courts of this 17 district have held repeatedly that neither supervisors nor officers fall within the definition of 18 employer. See Aguirre Vargas v. Fuller Brush Co. of P.R., 336 F. Supp. 2d 134, 141 (D.P.R. 1 The Court clarified that an injured employee may file the civil suit regardless of whether she has already been compensated by the SIF for the same injuries with the caveat that the SIF would then be entitled to reimbursement. Odriozola v. Superior Cosmetic Distribs. Corp., 16 P.R. Offic. Trans. 595, 614 (1985). Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) -6- 1 2004); Bonilla, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 339; Flamand v. Am. Int l Grp., 876 F. Supp. 356, 364 365 2 (D.P.R. 1994). No personal liability lies against the individual defendants under Law 80. 3 D. Possible Additional Claims 4 Movants argue for dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against the movants in their personal 5 capacity for wages, salaries, and overtime under Puerto Rico s Overtime Compensation Act 6 ( Law 379"), 29 L.P.R.A. 271 et seq. (Docket No. 13 at 7 8.) But, Plaintiffs never actually 7 made any claims under Law 379 in their complaint. Although Plaintiffs did refer to a claim for 8 loss of wages, commissions and benefits, they never mention Law 379, despite repeated 9 mention of the other Commonwealth statutes grounding their claims. (See Docket No. 1 at 10 13 14.) 11 Plaintiffs respond by attempting to add claims under Law 379, but concede that there is 12 no individual liability. (Docket No. 15 at 7.) Plaintiffs also attempt to add claims for wage, 13 salary, and hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 14 (2001), and offer arguments regarding personal liability under the FLSA. 15 Plaintiffs have not requested leave from this court to amend the complaint under Rule 16 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,2 which calls for this court to give permission to 17 amend freely, when justice so requires. Although Rule 15(b) permits issues to be raised by 2 The First Circuit has stated that, in theory, a court could treat a claim raised for the first time in response to a summary judgment motion as a motion to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a). Kunelius v. Town of Stow, 588 F.3d 1, 19 (1st Cir. 2009). In Kunelius, however, the court did not reach the question since the plaintiff had never argued to the district court that the newly-raised claim should be treated as a motion to amend the complaint. Id. Similarly, Plaintiffs in the present case never made such an argument. Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) -7- 1 express or implied consent of the parties, we find no consent here as movants oppose 2 Plaintiffs improper amendment of their complaint . . . . (Docket No. 17 at 4.) 3 The First Circuit instructs us to construe pleadings generously, paying more attention 4 to substance than to form, but also warns that we must always exhibit awareness of the 5 defendant s inalienable right to know in advance the nature of the cause of action being asserted 6 against him. Rodriguez v. Doral Mort. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1171 (1st Cir. 1995). Given 7 movants protests, we will not entertain Plaintiffs attempt to amend their complaint by adding 8 a claim in their response to a motion to dismiss. Id. at 1172. 9 E. Supplemental Jurisdiction 10 We reject movants argument that, having dismissed some claims against the individual 11 defendants, we should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 12 Commonwealth claims against the individual defendants. The Supreme Court has ruled that a 13 district court should, in its discretion, weigh the values of comity, judicial economy, 14 convenience and fairness to litigants in determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over state- 15 law claims in each case. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). The First 16 Circuit has explained that, [i]n an appropriate situation, a federal court may retain jurisdiction 17 over state-law claims notwithstanding the early demise of all foundational federal claims. 18 Doral Mort. Corp., 57 F.3d at 1177. 19 In the present case, the common factual and evidentiary underpinnings create intimate 20 links between the remaining Commonwealth claims and the ADEA claims. Considerations of Civil No. 10-1865 (JAF) -8- 1 judicial economy, convenience, and fairness all support this court s decision to exercise 2 jurisdiction over the remaining Commonwealth claims against the individual defendants in this 3 case. See Martinez v. Blanco Velez Store, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 108, 117 (D.P.R. 2005), 4 (recommending exercise of pendant jurisdiction over Commonwealth claims after dismissal of 5 Title VII claim against individual co-defendants), adopted by 393 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.P.R. 6 2005). 7 IV. 8 Conclusion 9 For the foregoing reasons, we hereby GRANT in part and DENY in part Movants 10 motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 13.) Plaintiffs claims against Movants as defendants in their 11 individual capacity under ADEA, PRWACA, and Law 80 are hereby DISMISSED. The court 12 will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Commonwealth causes of action against 13 all individual co-defendants in addition to the ADEA cause of action against Rocket Learning. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 11 th day of May, 2011. 16 17 18 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE United States District 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.