Arroyo-Flores v. Ipr Pharm., Inc.

WILLIAM ARROYO-FLORES, Plaintiff, v. IPR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Defendant.

Civil No. 15-1998 (BJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

March 9, 2017

OPINION AND ORDER

Alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, William Arroyo-Flores ("Arroyo") brought this action against IPR Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("IPR") under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Puerto Rico Law 115 ("Law 115"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 194a et seq., Puerto Rico Law 100 ("Law 100"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146, Puerto Rico Law 80 ("Law 80"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 185a et seq., Puerto Rico Law 44 ("Law 44"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 1, § 501 et seq., and Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code ("Article 1802"), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141. Docket No. 1 ("Compl.") at 12-14. IPR moved for summary judgment, Docket Nos. 19, 35, and Arroyo opposed. Docket Nos. 31, 41. The case is before me on consent of the parties. Docket No. 13.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant shows "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is "genuine" only if it "is one that could be resolved in favor of either party." Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004). A fact is "material" only if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions" of the record materials "which it believes demonstrate the absence" of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

The court does not act as trier of fact when reviewing the parties' submissions and so cannot "superimpose [its] own ideas of probability and likelihood (no matter how reasonable those ideas may be) upon" conflicting evidence. Greenburg v. P.R. Mar. Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932, 936 (1st Cir. 1987). Rather, it must "view the entire record in the light most hospitable to the party opposing summary judgment, indulging all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990). The court may not grant summary judgment "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

BACKGROUND

Except where otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56¹ submissions.²

The Parties

IPR manufactures pharmaceuticals and is regulated by state and federal laws and the Food and Drug Administration. SUF ¶¶ 1-2. "Crestor," a prescription drug used to reduce cholesterol, is the "most important" drug manufactured at IPR's plant. SUF ¶ 3. Arroyo was born in 1962, began working as a packaging operator for IPR in September 1987, and ended his employment in July 2015. SUF ¶¶ 4-5, 91-92. He has been diagnosed with depression. OSF ¶ 105. Arroyo initially received the company's employee handbook, and, later, received a revised copy of that handbook. SUF ¶¶ 27-29. During his employment at IPR, Arroyo had three immediate supervisors: he was supervised by Luis Rodriguez until 2011, Abraham Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") from 2011 to 2013, and Daniel Betancourt ("Betancourt") from 2013 until Arroyo's final day of employment. SUF ¶¶ 18-20. Evelyn Rivera ("Rivera") served as IPR's "Human Resources Lead," and Ralfy Calo ("Calo") was one of IPR's "top officers." SUF ¶ 80; OSF ¶¶ 83, 92.

Arroyo's Positions at IPR

IPR promoted Arroyo to various positions within IPR's manufacturing department. SUF ¶ 7. In August 1998, Arroyo was promoted to the "Manufacturing Operator VI" position, the highest level of the manufacturing operator positions. SUF ¶¶ 11-13. This post allowed Arroyo to perform at all stages of the drug-manufacturing process (including dispensing, milling, compression, and coating) and to train other employees in various positions within that process. SUF ¶¶ 8-10. During this same time period, Arroyo was also designated a "Supervisor's Designated Operator," which allowed him to coordinate other employees' schedules, help IPR's supervisor meet manufacturing goals, authorize "certain procedures" in the manufacturing process, approve the start of the manufacturing process, and furnish the "final approval" required for that process. SUF ¶¶ 11-13.

From 2010 to 2013, Arroyo worked in the "Dry Mill Blend" area of IPR's manufacturing plant. SUF ¶ 14. In January 2014, Arroyo was transferred to the plant's "Dispensing I" area. SUF ¶ 14; OSF ¶ 14. According to Arroyo, when he was transferred to this area, Betancourt told him, "Old man, I'm going to leave you here so you will retire." Docket No. 33-1 at 45. In May 2014, Arroyo was assigned to the plant's "Dispensing II" area "due to business needs."³ SUF ¶¶ 15; 16; OSF ¶ 16. Before May 2014, Arroyo had, on certain occasions, been assigned to the plant's "Dispensing II" area, where he provided "backup" and aided in the area's "cleaning" procedures. SUF ¶ 17; OSF ¶ 17.

Work Schedule

Arroyo was paid on an hourly basis, labored for eight hours per day and 40 hours per week, and worked the shift running from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. SUF ¶¶ 21-22. After approximately 2011, Arroyo was assigned an "earlier start time," though he remained scheduled to work an eight-hour workday. SUF ¶ 26. On occasion, Arroyo worked overtime or on weekends or would start his shift early to "accelerate production and meet production demands." SUF ¶¶ 23-25. IPR claims that Arroyo voluntarily and optionally worked overtime, weekends, or earlier than usual,⁴ while Arroyo asserts that Betancourt demanded that he work beyond his regularly scheduled hours or start his shift early and that he made such requests on short notice. SUF ¶¶ 23-25; OSF ¶¶ 23-25.

Discipline & Performance Evaluations

Arroyo acknowledged that he was disciplined on various occasions for violating IPR's manufacturing procedures. SUF ¶ 60. Specifically, he was disciplined for failing to follow these procedures in 2010, as well as in September and December 2013. See SUF ¶¶ 60-66; OSF ¶¶ 64-66. Arroyo received annual performance evaluations, and these disciplinary measures appear to have affected those evaluations. SUF ¶ 34. For example, it is undisputed that, in 2009, Luis Rodriguez evaluated Arroyo's overall performance as exceeding expectations, while, in 2010, he found that Arroyo's overall performance onlypartially met expectations. SUF ¶¶ 36-37. In 2010, Arroyo violated IPR's manufacturing procedures. SUF ¶ 38. Arroyo's violations of IPR's standard procedures in 2010 compromised the quality of IPR's products, and so IPR asked Arroyo to improve his performance so that it complied with IPR's procedures. SUF ¶ 38. Both parties agree that due to the "highly-regulated nature of IPR's operations," it is imperative that IPR's employees comply with the manufacturing procedures, including the "standard operating procedures" and "good manufacturing practices." SUF ¶ 47; OSF ¶ 47. Arroyo and other employees were trained to follow these procedures, and Arroyo was informed that violating these procedures could lead to termination. SUF ¶¶ 48-51, 54-59. Arroyo's training included the procedures required for working in the "Dispensing II" area, though Arroyo felt insufficiently experienced to work there. SUF ¶¶ 52-53; OSF ¶¶ 14, 16, 52, 53.

In 2011 and 2012, Arroyo received "outstanding" performance ratings in his annual evaluations and so his salary was increased each year. SUF ¶¶ 41-42. But Betancourt found that Arroyo's performance required improvement in the 2013 evaluation—the lowest rating in that year's performance evaluation—because Arroyo engaged in various violations of the company's quality standards and procedures. SUF ¶ 45. This performance evaluation was discussed with Arroyo, and he did not receive a salary increase that year because an employee who receives a subpar performance evaluation is ineligible for such an increase. SUF ¶¶ 45-46.

Suspension & Resignation

On June 30, 2014, Arroyo and Abdiel Irizarry ("Irizarry") were the only two manufacturing operators in charge of a particular batch of Crestor in the "Dispensing II" area of IPR's plant. SUF ¶¶ 67, 68, 72. Irizarry executed the dispensing process, and Arroyo observed and verified, with his initials, that Irizarry complied with the manufacturing order. SUF ¶¶ 70, 71, 73. At the end of the manufacturing process, a chemical test is conducted to ensure that the pharmaceuticals produced are safe for human consumption. SUF ¶ 74. A chemical test revealed that this particular batch of Crestor failed to meet the required specifications. SUF ¶ 75; OSF ¶ 75.⁵ According to an investigation by Eric Rivera ("Eric Rivera"), who works in IPR's Quality Department, this batch of Crestor was botched due to the human error of the only two individuals who had access to the machine—Arroyo and Irizarry. SUF ¶¶ 75-77.

On the other hand, according to Irizarry's deposition testimony, the Crestor batch failed to meet the required specifications because the machine malfunctioned—saying that the "equipment . . . was running . . . inefficient[ly] from the time it was installed." Docket No. 33-4 at 6; OSF ¶¶ 75-77. According to Irizarry, "it was communicated" to Luis Rodriguez, Abraham Rodriguez, Betancourt, and Calo that the equipment "did not work properly." Docket No. 33-4 at 6. Notwithstanding, according to Irizarry, Betancourt asked Irizarry to continue working with the equipment. Docket No. 33-4 at 4-6.

Moreover, Irizarry's deposition testimony relayed that the machine would sound an "alarm" whenever something was awry in the manufacturing...