Rodriguez-Cordero et al v. Centro de Salud de Lares, Inc., No. 3:2011cv02258 - Document 52 (D.P.R. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 48 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 08/21/2014. (dv)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MAGDALENA RODRIGUEZ-CORDERO et al., Plaintiff, Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) v. CENTRO DE SALUD DE LARES, INC., Defendant. 5 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 Plaintiffs, medical doctor Magdalena Rodriguez Cordero ( Rodriguez-Cordero ), 8 Jose Oscar Ramos Rodriguez, and their marital partnership (collectively Plaintiffs ), 9 filed a complaint on December 27, 2011 against Rodriguez-Cordero s employer, 10 Defendant Centro de Salud de Lares Inc. ( Defendant ), alleging declaratory relief as 11 well as damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1972 and the Civil Rights Act 12 of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 13 §2000e(a), and various state laws for alleged discriminatory actions against Rodriguez- 14 Cordero on the basis of sex and pregnancy. (Docket No. 1.) Rodriguez-Cordero argued 15 that her new non-compete clause was gender-based discrimination on the basis of her 16 pregnancy. (Docket No. 41 at 2.) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 17 ( EEOC ) had previously issued Rodriguez-Cordero a right-to-sue letter in September 18 2011. (Docket No. 1.) 19 On October 24, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket 20 Nos. 13.) On August 7, 2013, we granted the Defendants motion, dismissing Plaintiffs Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) -2- 1 federal law claims with prejudice and dismissing Plaintiff s commonwealth law claims 2 without prejudice. (Docket No. 41.) We found that Rodriguez-Cordero did not suffer an 3 adverse employment action because, although she declined its terms, Defendants had 4 offered her an employment contract. (Docket No. 41 at 3.) 5 Rodriguez-Cordero had failed to establish that her employers treated non-pregnant 6 employees more favorably than they treated her, because male doctors were offered 7 contracts containing the same non-compete clauses. (Docket No. 41 at 4.) Our opinion 8 made no mention of the claims being frivolous. 9 appealed, and on June 23, 2014 the First Circuit affirmed our judgment. (Docket Nos. 10 43, 46.) 11 We also found that (See Docket No. 41.) Plaintiffs On July 1, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion for attorney s fees. (Docket No. 48.) 12 Title VII provides that the court, in its discretion, may grant attorney s fees to 13 the prevailing party. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(k).1 In civil rights cases, fee-shifting in 14 favor of a prevailing plaintiff is the rule, whereas fee-shifting in favor of a prevailing 15 defendant is the exception. Casa Marie Hogar Geriatrico, Inc. v. Rivera-Santos, 38 16 F.3d 615, 618 (1st Cir. 1994). A prevailing defendant can only receive attorney s fees if 17 the plaintiff s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or [if] the plaintiff 18 continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Christiansburg Garmet Co. v. Equal 19 Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). Therefore, decisions 20 to grant defendants their fees are, and should be, rare. Tang v. State of R.I., Dept. of 21 Elderly Affairs, 163 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 1998). 1 We cite to the codified version. However, this section is also referenced in the case law as § 706(k) of Title VII. Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) -3- 1 In this case, Plaintiffs claims ultimately failed. (Docket No. 41.) However, we 2 retain discretion over fee requests. Tang, 163 F.3d at 15. We do not find elements of 3 contumacy, temerity, or lack of respect for legal process. Simply plaintiff lost. In light 4 of the standards set forth above, we decline to award attorney s fees to Defendants. 5 We, therefore, DENY Defendants motion for attorney s fees. (Docket No. 48.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of August, 2014. 8 9 10 S/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE U. S. 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.