Casta v. Citi Int'l Fin. Servs., LLC

FACEL CASTA, Plaintiff, v. CITI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

CIVIL NO.: 17-2359 (MEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

December 23, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

Ms. Facel Casta ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Casta") filed an amended complaint against Citi International Financial Services, LLC ("Defendant" or "CIFS") on September 10, 2019. ECF No. 26. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that CIFS retaliated against her and interfered with her medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, et seq. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that she was terminated without "just cause" in violation of Title 29, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 185a ("Law 80"). Plaintiff also alleges CIFS failed to reserve her employment pursuant to Title 11, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 7 ("Law 45"). Lastly, it is contended by Plaintiff that CIFS retaliated against her for seeking treatment at the State Insurance Fund in violation of Title 29, Annotated Laws of Puerto Rico, Section 194 ("Law 115").

Pending before the court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 33. Defendant argues, inter alia, that Plaintiff "has no viable cause of action under any of the statutes invoked in her Complaint and, accordingly, all her claims should be summarily dismissed with prejudice." ECF No. 33-2, at 3. Plaintiff responded in opposition on March 16, 2020. ECF Nos. 56, 57.

I. Standard of Review

The purpose of summary judgment "is to pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required." Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Summary judgment is granted when the record shows that "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 if the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party. A fact is material if it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation." Farmers Ins. Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777, 782 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rodríguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp., 532 F.3d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 2008)).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant presents a properly focused motion "averring 'an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case[,]' [t]he burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish the existence of at least one fact issue which is both 'genuine' and 'material.'" Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 1990)). For issues where the nonmoving party bears the ultimate burden of proof, the party cannot merely "rely on an absence of competent evidence, but must affirmatively point to specific facts [in the record] that demonstrate the existence of an authentic dispute." McCarthy v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The party need not, however, "rely only on uncontradicted evidence . . . . So long as the [party]'s evidence is both cognizable and sufficiently strong to support a verdict in her favor, the factfinder must be allowed todetermine which version of the facts is most compelling." Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).

In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the court "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, 904 F.2d at 115. There is "no room for credibility determinations, no room for the measured weighing of conflicting evidence such as the trial process entails, [and] no room for the judge to superimpose his own ideas of probability and likelihood." Greenburg v. P. R. Mar. Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932, 936 (1st Cir. 1987). The court may, however, safely ignore "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

II. Uncontested Material Facts¹

CIFS, a subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc., is a registered broker dealer that manages investment products for clients located in Latin America. CIFS offers services to clients in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, and Central America from Puerto Rico. CIFS services clients in these countries remotely due to local legal constraints. ECF No. 33-1, at 1, ¶ 1; ECF No. 57, at 2, ¶ 1. Late in 2014, Plaintiff was informed by Ms. Grisel Crespo, a Principal at CIFS and one of her former students of Portuguese, that therewas an opening for a Trilingual Relationship Management Associate position at CIFS, prompting Plaintiff to apply for the position. ECF No. 33-1, at 2, ¶ 3; ECF No. 57, at 2, ¶ 3.

Plaintiff was interviewed by Ms. Marcelle Díaz, Sales and Service Manager, and Ms. Suzette Ramírez, Human Resources Generalist. Plaintiff was informed in the interview that she would be required to take the Series 7 exam offered by the Financial Industry National Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"). ECF No. 33-1, at 2, ¶ 4; ECF No. 41-1, at 47-49; ECF No. 57, at 3, ¶ 4. The Series 7 exam, also known as the General Securities Representative Exam, qualifies an individual who passes the exam to (1) perform tasks on an investment account; (2) place transactions; and (3) speak with clients about investments. ECF No. 33-1, at 3; ¶ 11; ECF No. 57, at 4, ¶ 11.

CIFS required all employees that worked with clients to hold the Series 7 license or to pass the exam within a certain period of time during employment. ECF No. 33-1, at 3, ¶ 12; ECF No. 57, at 5, ¶ 12. Relationship Management Associates were required to hold a Series 7 license because their responsibilities included placing transactions for clients in different Latin American countries. ECF No. 33-1, at 3, ¶ 13; ECF No. 33-8, at 2, ¶ 9.

Employees that had to take the Series 7 exam were required to complete internal trainings at CIFS regarding different topics related to the Series 7 exam. These trainings also included tests that employees were required to pass. ECF No. 33-1, at 4, ¶ 16; ECF No. 57, at 6, ¶ 16. CIFS provided study books for the employees that had to take the Series 7 exam. Once the employee completed the books and internal trainings, Human Resources would review the data and verify that the trainings were completed. If the trainings were completed, Human Resources would contact the Registration Department. ECF No. 33-1, at 4, ¶¶ 17-18; ECF No. 41-5, at 11-12. The Registration Department would then contact FINRA and request the opening of awindow for the employee to take the Series 7 exam. The window would remain open for a period of 90 days. ECF No. 33-1, at 4, ¶ 19; ECF No. 41-5, at 11-12.

On December 29, 2014, CIFS hired Plaintiff as a Relationship Management Associate and she signed her employment contract that same day. Ms. Díaz was her supervisor. ECF No. 33-1, at 2, ¶ 5; ECF No. 57, at 3, ¶ 5; ECF No. 57, at 28, ¶ 96. Plaintiff's employment contract states that she was required to pass the Series 7 exam within 12 months of accepting the employment offer. ECF No. 33-1, at 2, ¶ 8; ECF No. 57, at 3-4, ¶ 8; ECF No. 33-9. Accordingly, that 12-month period concluded on December 29, 2015. ECF No. 33-1, at 3, ¶ 9; ECF No. 57, at 4, ¶ 9. Plaintiff was aware at the time she signed the employment contract that she was required to pass the Series 7 exam within 12 months. ECF No. 33-1, at 3, ¶ 10; ECF No. 57, at 4, ¶ 10; ECF No. 41-1, at 41.

Plaintiff began to work at CIFS on January 22, 2015. ECF No. 33-1, at 3, ¶ 15; ECF No. 57, at 5-6, ¶ 15. Plaintiff's primary task as a Relationship Management Associate was assisting brokers in the Mass Affluent business unit of CIFS. In this role, she was responsible for answering the phone, opening new accounts, and servicing clients, among other things. ECF No. 33-1, at 2, ¶ 7; ECF No. 57, at 3, ¶ 7. In January 2015, after she began working at CIFS, Plaintiff requested the Series 7 exam study books from Ms. Díaz. ECF No. 33-1, at 4, ¶¶ 20-21; ECF No. 57, at 7, ¶¶ 20-21. Ms. Díaz responded that she would complete the paperwork for her request. At the beginning of March 2015, Plaintiff followed up on her book request and Ms. Díaz informed her that the book authorization request was pending before Mr. Moisés Valladares. ECF No. 33-1, at 4, ¶ 22; ECF No. 57, at 7-8, ¶ 22.

On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff received the study books to prepare for the Series 7 exam. ECF No. 33-1, at 4, ¶ 23; ECF No. 57, at 8, ¶ 23; ECF No. 41-1, at 42. Plaintiff began to studythe books immediately after she received them. She would study for 3 hours after her work shift ended every day, in addition to Saturdays and Sundays. ECF No. 33-1, at 5, ¶ 24; ECF No. 57, at 8, ¶ 24. Plaintiff also took exam simulators to prepare for the Series 7 exam. ECF No. 33-1, at 5, ¶ 25; ECF No. 57, at 8, ¶ 25. At one point, Plaintiff claimed to have had no work to do during working hours so Ms. Díaz told Plaintiff to study for the Series 7 exam on the clock. ECF No. 33-1, at 5, ¶ 26; ECF No. 57, at 9, ¶ 26.

In May 2015, Plaintiff visited Dr. José González ("Dr. González") for treatment for anxiety due to work related stress. ECF No. 33-1, at 5, ¶ 27; ECF No. 57, at 9, ¶ 27. Plaintiff went to see Dr. González because she was feeling anxious, depressed, and she was unable to sleep. Plaintiff also saw Dr. González because she could not concentrate well enough to study for the Series 7 exam. ECF No. 33-1, at 5, ¶ 28; ECF No. 41-1, at 6-7. Dr. González diagnosed Plaintiff with Type II Bipolar Disorder and prescribed Seroquel, which is an...