Hernandez-Mendez v. Rivera

JANNETTE HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN RIVERA, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 15-1147 (GAG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

August 1, 2017

OPINION AND ORDER

Jannette Hernández-Méndez ("Hernández") brings this sex-based employment discrimination and retaliation action against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Family Department of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (collectively "Family Department") and two supervisors at the Family Department, Benjamin Rivera ("Rivera") and Marisel Rodríguez ("Rodríguez") in their personal and official capacities (collectively "Defendants"). (Docket No. 1.)

Hernández seeks redress for alleged violations of federal and local anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation employment statutes. Hernández raises hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. ("Title VII"). Id. Hernández also invokes this court's supplemental jurisdiction and brings three claims under Puerto Rico state law: Law 17 of April 1988, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, §§ 155-155m (sexual harassment) ("Law 17"); Law 69 of July 6, 1985, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, §§ 1321-1341 (gender discrimination) ("Law 69"); Law No. 115 of December 20, 1991, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 194a, et seq. (retaliation) ("Law 115"). Id.

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 50.) Hernández responded in opposition. (Docket No. 66.) Defendants replied. (Docket No. 78.) Upon review of the submissions of the parties and applicable law, Defendants' motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 50 is DENIED.

I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

The Court states the facts in the light most favorable to Hernández, the nonmovant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Unless otherwise noted, the facts are not disputed by the parties for summary judgment purposes. See L. CV. R. 56(e) (properly supported facts deemed admitted for summary judgment, unless properly controverted).

Hernández began working at the Family Department in 1994. (Defendants' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts, Docket No. 51, ¶ 1) (hereinafter "DSUMF"). In April 2013, Hernández was transferred to the Aguadilla I local office within the Family Department. (DSUMF ¶¶ 5-6; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts, Docket No. 66-1 ¶¶ 5-6) (hereinafter "PRSUMF"). Hernández was the secretary for the director of the Aguadilla I local office. (DSUMF ¶ 25; PRSUMF ¶ 25.) At that time, Rivera was the acting director of Aguadilla I. (DSUMF ¶ 21; PRSUMF ¶ 21.) Rivera was new to this position, too; he was appointed acting director of Aguadilla I in January 2013. (Docket No. 81-1, at 2.)

The organizational structure of the Family Department is important to understanding the individuals involved in this case. Rivera, as director of the local office, was responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs at the Aguadilla I local office. (Docket No. 66-2, at 14-15.) Rivera was Hernández's supervisor at Aguadilla I. (Docket Nos. 51-1, at 19; 66-2, at 38.) However, Rivera did not have the authority to hire, terminate, promote, transfer, or award salary raises to the employees under his supervision at Aguadilla I. (DSUMF ¶¶ 93-96; PRSUMF ¶¶ 93-96.) Rivera's supervisor, in turn, was Rodríguez, who held the position of regional director for the Family Department, and oversaw the affairs of multiple local offices within her designated region.(DSUMF ¶ 103; PRSUMF ¶ 103.) Rodríguez possessed the authority to relocate and transfer employees within the local offices under her supervision. (DSUMF ¶ 132; PRSUMF ¶ 132.) However, Rodríguez lacked the authority to promote, demote, or terminate employees. (DSUMF ¶¶ 133-35; PRSUMF ¶¶ 133-35.) Only the Secretary for the Family Department has the authority to promote, terminate, or award raises to Family Department employees. (DSUMF ¶¶ 129-31; PRSUMF ¶¶ 129-31.)

All of the interactions between Hernández and Rivera relevant to this case occurred during the month-long period Hernández was assigned to Aguadilla I as Rivera's secretary. Shortly after Hernández began her new position as Rivera's secretary, Rivera called Hernández into his office. (DSUMF ¶ 22; PRSUMF ¶ 22.) Rivera asked Hernández whether she had "special friend"¹ or a boyfriend. (DSUMF ¶ 22; PRSUMF ¶ 22.) Hernández replied that she did not, that she was married but separated from her husband, and walked out of Rivera's office. (DSUMF ¶ 22; PRSUMF ¶ 22.) After that conversation, Hernández felt uncomfortable and mad. (Plaintiff's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts, Docket No. 66-1, at 15 ¶ 6) (hereinafter "PSUMF").

A few days later, Rivera approached Hernández at her desk and asked her age. (DSUMF ¶ 28; PSUMF ¶ 7.) Hernández was surprised by the question, and answered that she was forty years old. (DSUMF ¶ 28; PSUMF ¶ 7.) In response, Rivera leaned in close to Hernández and told her that she was "very hot"² for her age. (DSUMF ¶ 28; PSUMF ¶ 7.) This interaction left Hernández feeling uncomfortable and angry. (PSUMF ¶ 8.)

The third encounter occurred about two weeks later. On May 3, 2013, Rivera approached Hernández's desk and asked her to retrieve a document for him. (DSUMF ¶ 32; PSUMF ¶ 9.) Hernández stood up and went to the file cabinet to locate the document. (DSUMF ¶ 32; PSUMF ¶ 9.) While looking for the document, Hernández felt Rivera's body pressed up against her back from behind. (DSUMF ¶ 32; PSUMF ¶ 9.) In response, Hernández immediately walked away from her desk area without making any comments to Rivera. (DSUMF ¶ 32; PSUMF ¶ 9.) Following the encounter, Hernández was nervous and felt that she was going to cry. (PSUMF ¶ 10.) Hernández then approached a trusted colleague, Rosa Pérez ("Pérez"), to tell her what happened. (Docket No. 51-1, at 22.) Pérez was a local supervisor at Aguadilla I, but she did not supervise Hernández. Id. at 18, 20, 22. Pérez suggested that Hernández should disclose the incident to their union representative and file a grievance to report Rivera's conduct. Id. at 22.

After speaking with Pérez, Hernández left the local office and called Maria Santiago ("Santiago"), the employee's union representative. Id. at 17, 42. Santiago suggested that Hernández submit a grievance regarding Rivera's conduct. (DSUMF ¶ 35; PRSUMF ¶ 35.) Santiago then called Rodríguez, the regional director for the Family Department, to schedule an appointment to address the situation and report Rivera's harassing behavior. (Docket No. 70-4 at 1-2; DSUMF ¶ 36; PRSUMF ¶ 36.) Rodríguez is Rivera's immediate supervisor. (Docket No. 81-1, at 2.)

The meeting with the regional director took place the same day. (PSUMF ¶ 14; see also Docket No. 51-1, at 76.) Four people attended the meeting: Hernández, Santiago (the union representative), Rodríguez (the regional director), and Margarita García (the secretary to the regional director).³ (DSUMF ¶ 39; PRSUMF ¶ 39.) Hernández was uncomfortable about García's presenceat the meeting because she believed García and Rivera were close friends. (PSUMF ¶ 18; see also Docket Nos. 51-1, at 68; 70-3 at 3.) At some point during the meeting, Rodríguez indicated to Hernández that Rivera should be present, which Hernández adamantly refused because Rivera's presence made her nervous. (Docket Nos. 51-1, at 54-55; 70-3, at 3.)

During the meeting, Hernández described the three interactions that took place between her and Rivera.⁴ (DSUMF ¶ 40, PSUMF 14; see also Docket No. 51-1 at 53-54.) Hernández also described a fourth incident: she asked Rivera to move a filing cabinet to create more space around her desk, Rivera initially declined, and then eventually moved the cabinet in a manner that Hernández perceived as rude. (PSUMF ¶ 12; see also Docket Nos. 51-1 at 59; 72-1 at 2.) Finally, Hernández described Rivera's constant looks and gazes in her direction, which made her uncomfortable. (PSUMF ¶ 11.) García took the meeting minutes. (PSUMF ¶ 17; Docket No. 70-4.)

The net effect of the May 3rd meeting was twofold. Regional director Rodríguez determined that Hernández would be transferred to the Aguadilla II local office, beginning on the following Monday. (DSUMF ¶ 40; PRSUMF ¶ 40.) Hernández filed a formal sexual harassment complaint with the Family Department at the conclusion of the May 3rd meeting. (Docket No. 72-1.)

Aside from being transferred to a position she did not want, Hernández experienced spells of anger, sadness, depression, crying, and work-related anxiety after May 2013. (PSUMF ¶ 1.) This prompted Hernández to seek treatment from a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Id. at ¶ 2-4. She visited the psychiatrist regularly for about a year. Id. at ¶ 4. Hernández was diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication for her condition. Id.

On October 3, 2013, following Hernández's May 3rd sexual harassment complaint, the Family Department conducted a formal interview with Hernández. (Docket No. 72-2.) The October 3rd interview was part of an internal investigation conducted by the Family Department. (Docket No. 51-1, at 65.) In the October 3rd interview, Hernández essentially repeated her interactions with Rivera in the Aguadilla I local office: the marital status question; the 'hot-for-her-age' remark; the incident of physical contact; the constant uncomfortable looks; and rude way Rivera responded to Hernández's request to rearrange the filing cabinet. (Docket No. 72-2, at 5-6.)

On November 11, 2013, Hernández filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Puerto Rico Department of Labor Antidiscrimination Unit and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Docket Nos. 51-6 at 1; 70-3.) The EEOC charge repeated the events as previously recounted by Hernández in the May 3rd and October 3rd meetings. The EEOC sent Hernández a Notice of Right to Sue letter on November 24, 2014, which she received on November 29, 2014. (Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 5-6.)

Hernández...