Castro-Medina v. Procter & Gamble Commercial Co.

565 F.Supp.2d 343

Dilian CASTRO-MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMMERCIAL CO., et als., Defendants.

Civ. No. 04-2274 (PG).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

June 28, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez, Mendoza Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez, O'Neill & Borges, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Dilian Castro Medina (hereinafter "Plaintiff or "Castro") filed this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 ("ADA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., against her employer, The Procter & Gamble Commercial Company ("P & G", "Defendant" or "the Company"), alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of a protected disability. See Docket No. 1. As part of her discrimination claim, Plaintiff alleges that P & G failed to reasonably accommodate her disability, and wrongfully terminated and retaliated against her for engaging in protected conduct. She also alleges the Defendant retaliated against her and interfered with the exercise of her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq. Id. Finally, Plaintiff includes supplemental state law claims based upon Puerto Rico's wrongful termination, retaliation, disability and general negligence statutes. See P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 1, § 501, et seq.; P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 185, et seq.; P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 194, et seq.; P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, § 5142.

P & G moved for summary judgment requesting the dismissal of the claims brought forth by Plaintiff on the grounds that Castro is unable to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. The Defendant argues that Castro is not disabled within the definition of the ADA and was not qualified for the job. The Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is unable to prove her failure-to-accommodate and harassment claims. Finally, the Defendant proffers that its actions were not motivated by Plaintiffs alleged condition or for having taken FMLA leave. The Company also argues that it did not retaliate against Plaintiff for having filed a charge with the Anti-Discrimination Unit ("ADU") and the present claim. On the contrary, the Defendant claims that its actions were based on legitimate grounds. See Dockets No. 40-42. Plaintiffs opposition, Defendant's reply, and Plaintiffs sur-reply thereto have also been submitted for our consideration. See Dockets No. 50-51, 60-61, 76.

Also before the Court is the Defendant's motion to strike certain materials supporting Plaintiffs opposition to the motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 62. Therein, P & G challenges the admissibility of: (1) a reporting letter from rheumatologist Dr. Jorge Mundo, Plaintiffs treating physician; (2) Plaintiffs medical file with another physician, Dr. Jose Roman, along with a typewritten note; (3) Castro's medical file with a family physician, Dr. Raymond Tasch; and (4) an expert witness report by psychiatrist Dr. Jose Villanueva. See Docket No. 62. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs opposition to Defendant's motion to strike, and a reply and sur-reply thereto. See Dockets No. 65, 75 & 77. Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the motion to strike are related, and thus, the Court has determined to address the objections advanced in the latter on a point-by-point basis to the extent necessary in deciding the dispositive motion.

After a close examination of all the evidence on record and a careful review of the applicable statutory and case law, the Court GRANTS IN PART P & G's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART P & G's motion to strike for the reasons explained below.

I. FACTUAL FINDINGS

The following relevant facts are undisputed¹:

Plaintiff

1. During Plaintiff Dilian Castro-Medina's employment at P & G, she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, depression and other lesions (herniated disks, severe cervico-lumbar trauma, and others) stemming out of an automobile accident that occurred in August of 2002. Due to these conditions, Castro was required to take leaves of absence. See Amended Complaint, Docket No. 6, ¶¶ 7, 10, 12; Amended Answer, Docket No. 11, ¶¶ 7, 10, 12.

The Company

2. P & G sells and distributes consumer products, and through a special arrangement assists an affiliated entity, PG Pharmaceuticals, in the marketing and sale of pharmaceutical products in Puerto Rico. See Docket No. 42, ¶ 1.

3. P & G maintains an express written policy prohibiting any type of discrimination, including disability discrimination and/or harassment in the workplace. This policy is shared with all employees, including Plaintiff, upon enrollment. Id. at ¶ 47.

4. The policy is published in the personnel manual and policy statements as well as P & G's intranet. Id. at ¶ 48.

5. P & G's anti-harassment policy prohibits such conduct and provides an internal grievance procedure to report any type of complaint for investigation and resolution. Id. at ¶ 49.

Plaintiff's Employment

6. Plaintiff Dilian Castro was an employee of the Company from February of 1998 until March 4, 2005, when her employment was terminated. Id. at ¶ 2.

7. Plaintiff began work as a Secretary in PG Commercial's Customer Business Development Department, with a salary of $21,000. Id. at ¶ 7.

8. On April 1, 2000, she was promoted to a managerial position (Medical Account Manager) in the Pharmaceutical Group. Her yearly salary increased from $24,200 to $45,200. Id. at ¶ 7.

9. On March 2, 2004, Plaintiff was involved in a car accident and took a leave of absence to seek medical treatment with the Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund ("SIF"). The Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs employment terminated on March 4, 2005 upon lapse of a twelve-month leave of absence for treatment with the SIF.² Id. at ¶ 16.

Medical Account Manager Position

10. As a manager, Plaintiff was not subject to a fixed "9 to 5" work schedule. Id. at ¶ 7.

11. P & G's Medical Account Managers are expected to visit at least 9 physicians a day (9 "calls" a day); educate them on the assigned products; and, distribute samples of the products (medications) to those targeted physicians. Their overall objective is to increase the products' market share by incrementing prescription volume in Puerto Rico. Id. at ¶ 34.

12. Plaintiff failed to meet the position's objectives. During the time that she actually worked (discounting her leaves of absence), her call average was as follows:

Period Compliance Percentage
July-December 2000                  48%
January-June 2001                   61%
July-December 2001                  14%
January-June 2002                   38%
July-December 2002                  70%
January-June 2003                    6%
July-December 2003                  53%

Id. at ¶ 35.

13. Plaintiff was advised of these deficiencies in her 2003 evaluation ("Work and Development Plan"), through a "Performance Improvement Discussion" on February 18, 2003, and on a follow up note on September 2, 2003. Id. at ¶ 36.

14. Her peers were similarly advised as follows: Ms. Dolyssa Campos ("Performance Improvement Discussion," 2000); Mr. Mario Anglada ("Work and Development Plan," 2000, 2002, 2003); Mr. Joaquin Ortiz ("Work and Development Plan," 2000, 2004); Mr. Israel Rosado ("Work and Development Plan," 2002, 2003); Mr. Onofre Rivera ("Work and Development Plan," 2003); and Mr. Carlos Velez ("Work and Development Plan," 2003, 2004). Ms. Campos was terminated for failure to reach her call objectives, among other expense report issues. Id. at ¶ 35.

Expense Reports

15. As part of her duties, Castro was expected to prepare expense reports during downtime and off-hours. Instructions on how to fill these expense reports are posted in the Company's intranet. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 21.

16. As a Medical Account Manager, Castro was required to submit expense reports to her supervisor. Initially, the reports were to be submitted on a monthly basis. Afterwards, every two weeks. These reports are critical for P & G's internal controls and the proper utilization of Company funds. They are used to make sure employees receive reimbursement for business expenses they have incurred. Id. at ¶ 21.

17. During Plaintiffs employment with the Company, she failed to comply with the Company's expense report procedures. Plaintiff admits that sometimes she did not submit the expense reports for months. Id. at ¶ 21.

18. On February 18, 2003, by means of a written "Work and Development Plan" and a "Performance Improvement Discussion," the Company warned Plaintiff to correct this problem. Id. at ¶ 23.

19. On February 16, 2005, while Plaintiff was on her medical leave with the SIF, she was once again warned of the need to submit timely expense reports. It stems from Plaintiffs admissions during her deposition that when Plaintiff reported to the SIF on March 2, 2004, she had not submitted the required expense reports since December of 2003, and did not prepare them until March 23, 2005. See id. at ¶ 24; Docket No. 42, Exhibit C, pgs. 81-82.

20. Plaintiff, a Manager, attributes her failure to submit timely expense reports to her lack of understanding on how to prepare them. She wanted the Company to give her: (1) extra coaching on expense report preparation; (2) time off work to prepare them, and; (3) that her peers should assist her on preparing her reports. Id. at ¶ 25.

21. P & G also warned other Medical Account Managers (Ms. Dolyssa Campos, Mr. Joaquin Ortiz) of the need to comply with the established expense report procedures. Id. at ¶ 26.

Corporate Credit Card

22. As a Medical Account Manager, Plaintiff was required to have an American Express corporate credit card to cover business-related expenses. Id. at ¶ 27.

23. Plaintiff applied for an American Express corporate credit card but American Express denied her application because of her poor credit...