Galarza-Cruz v. Grupo HIMA San Pablo, Inc.

YADIRA GALARZA-CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. GRUPO HIMA SAN PABLO, INC.; CENTRO MÉDICO DEL TURABO, INC.;JOCAR ENTERPRISES CORP.; FERNADNO RODRÍGUEZ; LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS;JOHN DOE; JANE ROE; INSURANCE COMPANIES B AND C Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 17-1606 (RAM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

May 28, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, U.S. District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Grupo HIMA San Pablo, Inc., JOCAR Enterprises, Centro Médico del Turabo, Inc., and Fernando Rodriguez joint Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, accompanied by a Statement of Uncontested Facts. (Docket Nos. 85 and 85-1). For the reasons discussed below, having considered the parties' submissions in opposition and support of the same, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 85).

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2017, Plaintiff Yadira Galarza-Cruz ("Galarza" or "Plaintiff") sued Grupo HIMA San Pablo, Inc. ("Grupo HIMA"); JOCAR Enterprises, Inc. ("JOCAR"); Centro Médico del Turabo, Inc. ("CMT"); Joaquín Rodríguez; and Fernando Rodríguez for sex discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge and damages pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") and various Puerto Rico employment statutes.¹ (Docket No. 1). Essentially, Plaintiff claims that she was sexually harassed by Fernando Rodríguez while being employed by JOCAR and CMT, companies which she alleges are joint employers with Grupo HIMA. Id. ¶¶ 30-54.

The aforementioned co-defendants filed several, individual motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Docket Nos. 16, 21, 23, 24, 25). Consequently, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the following causes of action: (i) claims against Joaquín Rodríguez and Fernando Rodríguez under Title VII; (ii) claims against Joaquín Rodríguez and Fernando Rodríguez under Law 115; (iii) claims against Joaquín Rodríguez under Law 17, Law 69 and Law 100; (iv) claims under Articles 1802 and 1803; and (v) Claims under Sections 1, 8 and 16 of the Puerto Rico Constitution. (Docket No. 39).

In light of the Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, eliminating Joaquin Rodríguez as a co-defendant and the claims dismissed by the Court. (Docket No. 46). Additionally, Plaintiff substituted the previously unnamed co-defendant "insurance Company A" with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty"), who has an insurance policy covering Grupo HIMA, JOCAR, and CMT. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. The remaining co-defendants, including Liberty, filed timely, individual answers to the Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51, 55).

On May 31, 2019, Grupo HIMA, JOCAR, CMT, and Fernando Rodríguez, (collectively, "Defendants") filed a joint Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, with an accompanying Statement of Uncontested Facts. (Docket Nos. 85 and 85-1). Co-defendant Liberty subsequently filed a Motion Joining Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 88). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a Statement of Additional Facts Preventing the Entry of Summary Judgment. (Docket Nos. 102, 102-1 at 43-68). Furthermore, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition and Plaintiff filed a Surreply to Defendant's Reply. (Docket Nos. 115 and 125, respectively).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for summary judgment are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that (1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and (2) they are 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 favor of the non-moving party." Thompson v. Coca-Cola Co., 522 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2008). A fact is considered material if it "may potentially 'affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.'" Albite v. Polytechnic Univ. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 3d 191, 195 (D.P.R. 2014) (quoting Sands v. Ridefilm Corp., 212 F.3d 657, 660-661 (1st Cir. 2000)).

The moving party has "the initial burden of demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with definite and competent evidence." Mercado-Reyes v. City of Angels, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 344, at 347 (D.P.R. 2018) (quotation omitted). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, to present "competent evidence to rebut the motion." Bautista Cayman Asset Co. v. Terra II MC & P, Inc., 2020 WL 118592, at 6* (quoting Méndez-Laboy v. Abbott Lab., 424 F.3d 35, 37 (1st Cir. 2005)). A nonmoving party must show "that a trialworthy issue persists." Paul v. Murphy, 948 F.3d 42, 49(1st Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).

While a court will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, it will disregard conclusory allegations, unsupported speculation and improbable inferences. See Johnson v. Duxbury, Massachusetts, 931 F.3d 102, 105 (1st Cir. 2019). Moreover, the existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not affect an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379 (2007) (quotation omitted). Hence, the court should review the record in its entirety and refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000).

In this District, summary judgment is also governed by Local Rule 56. See L. CV. R. 56(c). Per this Rule, an opposing party must "admit, deny or qualify the facts supporting the motion for summary judgment by reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts." Id. Furthermore, unless the fact is admitted, the opposing party must support each denial or qualification with a record citation. Id.

Additionally, Local Rule 56(c) allows an opposing party to submit additional facts "in a separate section." L. CV. R. 56(c). Given that the plain language of Local Rule 56(c) specifically requires that any additional facts be stated in a separate section, parties are prohibited from incorporating numerous additional facts within their opposition. See Natal Pérez v. Oriental Bank & Trust, 291 F. Supp. 3d 215, 218-219 (D.P.R. 2018) (quoting Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, 596 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2010) and Malave-Torres v. Cusido, 919 F.Supp. 2d 198, 207 (D.P.R. 2013)).

If a party opposing summary judgment fails to comply with Local Rule 56(c)'s strictures, "a district court is free, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to accept the moving party's facts as stated." Caban Hernandez v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). Thus, litigants ignore this rule at their peril. See Natal Pérez, 291 F. Supp. 3d at 219 (citations omitted).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

To make findings of fact, the Court analyzed Defendant's Statement of Uncontested Facts ("DSUF") (Docket No. 85-1) and Plaintiff's Statement of Contested or Disputed Material Facts as to which Genuine Issues Exist for trial, and Statement of Additional Facts Preventing the Entry of Summary Judgment ("PSAF") (Docket No. 102-1).²

After only crediting material facts that are properly supported by a record citation and uncontroverted, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

1. Co-defendant Grupo HIMA San Pablo, Inc. ("Grupo HIMA") is a holding company with two subsidiaries: co-defendant Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc. ("CMT") and co-defendant JOCAR Enterprises ("JOCAR"). (Docket No. 85-1 ¶ 1).

2. Joaquín Rodríguez formed all the corporations that comprise Grupo HIMA. Id. ¶ 15.

3. Joaquín Rodríguez was the chairman of the board and Chief Executive Officer of Grupo HIMA prior to his retirement. Id.¶ 17.

4. Joaquín Rodríguez is currently retired but has a consulting contract with Grupo HIMA and owns approximately 35% of the shares of Grupo HIMA. The other stockholders are Carlos Piñero, who owns 34% of the shares, and approximately 90 other stockholders. Id. ¶ 16.

5. CMT has the following subsidiaries: HIMA San Pablo Properties, HIMA San Pablo Captive Insurance Company Limited and SabiaMed. Id. ¶¶ 3-4.

6. There are five (5) HIMA hospitals: Caguas, Bayamón, Fajardo, Humacao and Cupey. These hospitals are unincorporated units of CMT "doing business as" the names of each hospital. (Docket Nos. 85-1 ¶¶ 5-7; 85-3 at 50).

7. CMT has several centralized departments that provide services to the HIMA hospitals, including accounting, marketing, human resources and legal. (Docket No. 85-1 ¶ 6).

8. The centralized operation of Human Resources for the hospitals is led by Eric Perez. Additionally, each hospital has its own Human Resources director, manager or coordinator who reports to each hospital's administrator as well as Eric Perez. Id. ¶ 8.

9. JOCAR is a corporation that provides different services to HIMA hospitals and corporations including, printing, messenger services, environmental quality (janitorial services), cafeteria, and pharmacy. Id. ¶ 9.

10. JOCAR has several subsidiaries, including an ambulance company and a security services company. Id. ¶¶ 3, 11.

11. When JOCAR was created, it provided janitorial services exclusively to HIMA hospitals. (Docket No. 85-1 ¶ 12; 102-4 at 7).

12. Co-defendant Fernando Rodríguez, Joaquín Rodríguez's brother, served as vice-president of JOCAR since its creation in 2005. (Docket No. 85-1 ¶ 19).

13. Fernando Rodríguez was appointed vice-president of JOCAR by Carlos Piñero. Id. ¶ 20.

14. Carlos Piñero, the president of Grupo HIMA was Fernando Rodríguez's boss at HIMA and also at JOCAR. (Docket No. 102-4 at 5, 11).

15. Prior to becoming JOCAR's vice-president, Fernando Rodríguez worked for HIMA hospitals and supervised about 300 employees. (Docket No. 85-1 ¶ 24).

16. Once he was named JOCAR's vice-president, Fernando Rodríguez continued to supervise these 300 HIMA hospital employees. Id.27.

17. On February 22, 2010, Galarza

...