Miles v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership et al, No. 3:2012cv01288 - Document 49 (D.P.R. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 47 MOTION for Reconsideration of Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 02/28/2014.(mrj)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 LONDON MILES, Plaintiff, Civil No. 12-1288 (JAF) v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, SHAWYN MALEY, Defendant. 5 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 On March 27, 2012, London Miles ( Miles ) filed a complaint against defendants 8 Wyndham Vacation Ownership ( Wyndham ) and Shawyn Maley ( Maley ) alleging 9 employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 10 § 2000e ( Title VII ), and its anti-retaliation proviso in Section 704(a). (Docket No. 1.) 11 On March 15, 2013, Wyndham filed a motion for summary judgment, which we denied 12 on January 24, 2014 (Docket Nos. 16, 43.) On February 19, 2014, Wyndham filed a 13 motion for reconsideration, and Miles filed a response on February 21, 2014. (Docket 14 Nos. 47, 48.) On reconsideration, we uphold our previous order denying summary 15 judgment, but clarify that we are trying this case as one of sexual discrimination, sexual 16 harassment, and a hostile work environment under Title VII, as well as a case of 17 retaliation under Title VII. 18 As we stated in our original order, summary judgment is only granted to the 19 defendant if no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff in any of her claims when all 20 reasonable inferences from the evidence are drawn in her favor. See Scott v. Harris, 550 Civil No. 12-1288 (JAF) -2- 1 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Wyndham appears to misunderstand this standard. Questions of 2 reasonableness based on disputed facts are matters for a jury in trial, not for a judge in 3 summary judgment. See id. 4 Wyndham also argues that none of these conclusions of fact, as stated in the 5 Opinion and Order, are supported by the evidence on the record. (Docket No. 47 at 3.) 6 As we explained in our original order, in summary judgment we must view all properly- 7 plead facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Therefore, to the extent 8 that any facts are disputed, the facts we set forth represented Miles properly-plead 9 version of the events at issue. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 10 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Local Rules 56 (c) and (e). 11 We do, however, clarify our order based upon Wyndham s request that we dismiss 12 plaintiff s Title VIII national origin discrimination claim. (Docket No. 47 at 14.) We 13 read Miles Title VII claims as allegations of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, 14 and a hostile work environment, together with allegations of retaliation per Section 15 704(a) of Title VII. (Docket No. 1.) Although the complaint states that Defendants 16 conduct constitutes gender, origin and race based discrimination, sexual harassment and 17 retaliation, it only details sexual harassment and a hostile environment. (Docket 18 No. 1 at 2-3.) Likewise, Miles response in opposition to summary judgment opens its 19 Title VII section by stating that the act prohibits discriminating against an individual 20 based on his or her sex. (Docket No. 22 at 11.) 21 Miles allegations related to national origin discrimination appear in her summary 22 judgment pleadings where she claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment. Civil No. 12-1288 (JAF) -3- 1 She alleges that Maley spoke badly about Puerto Ricans in general and that she heard him 2 say that Puerto Rico was like a little Harlem, that the environment in Puerto Rico was 3 fogeyish, and that Puerto Ricans have no money. (Docket No. 22 at 12.) The First 4 Circuit has stated that [c]ourts should avoid disaggregating a hostile work environment 5 claim, and should instead consider the totality of circumstances to assess the 6 cumulative effect. 7 Therefore, these alleged comments are relevant in assessing whether Miles experienced a 8 hostile work environment and we feel no need no change our previous order. 9 10 O Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713, 730 (2001). For the foregoing reasons, Wyndham s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 47) is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28th day of February, 2014. 13 14 15 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.