Martínez-Taboas v. Universidad Carlos Albizu, Inc.

Dr. ALFONSO MARTÍNEZ-TABOAS, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS ALBIZU, INC.; INSURANCE COMPANY XYZ;COMPANY ABC; JOHN & JANE DOE, Defendants.

Civil No. 20-1503 (FAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

July 2, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

BESOSA, District Judge.

Before the Court are two motions: defendant Universidad Carlos Albizu ("UCA")'s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("Rule 12(b)(6)"), and plaintiff Dr. Alfonso Martínez-Taboas ("Martínez")'s motion for leave to amend the complaint. (Docket Nos. 7 and 10) For the reasons set forth below, UCA's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Martínez's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Background

This litigation concerns alleged employment discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as well as Puerto Rico law.

The Court construes the following facts from the first amended complaint "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[]" and "resolve[s] any ambiguities" in the plaintiff's favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2011) (discussing the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review).

Martínez was a professor at UCA. (Docket No. 10-5 at p. 5) He received awards for his expertise in various topics, including psychological trauma and personality disorders. Id. He became a professor in 2014, after 17 years as an associate professor. Id. As a professor, Martínez met or exceeded UCA's expectations, including receiving the 'Professor of the Year' award twice. Id.

Martínez turned 66 years old in 2019. See Id. at p. 5. Beginning in August, 2019, and continuing until November, 2019, Martínez filed internal complaints with UCA regarding a younger colleague allegedly defaming and humiliating him. Id. at p. 7. UCA did not respond to the complaints, leading Martínez to lodge additional complaints that he was being treated unequally due to his age. Id. Martínez warned UCA that if it did not investigate his complaint, he would pursue legal action for the alleged unequal treatment. Id. at p. 8.

In January, 2020, UCA instead opened an investigation into Martínez. Id. at p. 8. UCA Human Resources set up a meeting with Martínez for February 18, 2020 where he learned he was being suspended. Id. at p. 8-9. Martínez was told that the suspension was due to a sexual harassment allegation. Id. at p. 9.

On February 25, 2020, Martínez filed a charge with the EEOC for discrimination and retaliation, charge #515-2020-00234 ("the first charge"). Id.

UCA's investigation of Martínez continued through February and March, 2020. Id. at p. 9-10. UCA told him that the investigation was based on allegations from female students over incidents that allegedly occurred between 2016 and 2018. Id. The female students had complained that they felt uncomfortable in his lecture classes. Id. at p. 10.

As an expert in psychopathology and psychological trauma, many of Martínez's classes were related to normal and abnormal sexuality. Id. at p. 6. UCA had never previously raised any concern over the topics in Martínez's class syllabus for the 24 years he had been teaching. Id. at p. 7.

UCA completed its investigation of Martínez and recommended his termination. Id. at p. 10. On April 6, 2020, UCA terminated Martínez. Id.

In June, 2020, Martínez filed a second charge at the EEOC alleging retaliation, #515-2020-00310 ("the second charge"). Id. at p. 10.

Martínez received a right to sue letter from the EEOC for his first charge in August, 2020. Id. at p. 3.

On September 24, 2020, Martínez filed this case against UCA, asserting a cause of action for discrimination based on age pursuant to the ADEA, Puerto Rico Law No. 100, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; a cause of action for retaliation pursuant to the ADEA, Title VII, Puerto Rico Law No. 115, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and various state law claims. (Docket No. 1)

On December 23, 2020, UCA moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Docket No. 7)

The EEOC issued a right to sue letter to Martínez for the second charge on January 25, 2021. (Docket No. 10-2 at p. 1)

After receiving an extension of time to reply to UCA's motion to dismiss, on February 8, 2021, Martínez moved to amend the complaint. (Docket No. 10) UCA opposed this motion on the basis of futility. (Docket No. 12) Martínez replied. (Docket No. 15)

II. UCA's Motion to Dismiss

UCA's motion to dismiss was directed at Martínez's unamended complaint, though UCA's opposition to Martínez's motion to amend the complaint references the motion to dismiss and echoes its arguments. (Docket Nos. 7 and 12) While the Court could find that the presentation of an amended pleading moots the original motion to dismiss, "the court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading. To hold otherwise would be to exalt form over substance." 6 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2015).

As the Court will next explain, the analysis required to determine if the motion to amend the complaint should be granted is identical to the analysis of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court will resolve the two motions together.

III. Martínez's Motion to Amend

A. Legal Standard

i. Futility Review

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) ("Rule 15(a)(2)") a court "should freely give leave" to amend a complaint "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Without an adequate basis for the denial of leave to amend "such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.," courts should allow parties to amend their complaints. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Grant v. News Group Boston, Inc., 55 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 1995).

UCA argues that Martínez's proposed amended complaint is futile and, therefore, the Court should deny his motion to amend his complaint. (Docket No. 12) "'Futility' means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing 3 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-80 (2d ed. 1993)). When reviewing a motion to amend a complaint for futility, a district court applies the same standard it would apply to a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Id. This means that "there is no practical difference, in terms of review, between a denial of a motion to amend based on futility and the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Id.

Although the review process for futility mirrors that of the review process of a motion to dismiss, "[t]he appropriateness vel non of a district court decision denying a motion to amend on the ground of futility depends, in the first instance, on the posture of the case." Hatch v. Dep't. for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001). The First Circuit Court of Appeals explains:

If leave to amend is sought before discovery is complete and neither party has moved for summary judgment, the accuracy of the "futility" label is gauged by reference to the liberal criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In this situation, amendment is not deemed futile as long as the proposed amended complaint sets forth a general scenario which, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief against the defendant on some cognizable theory.

Id. (citations omitted).

The more liberal standard of futility review applies to the posture of this case. Here, Martínez moved to amend his complaint on February 8, 2021, and no motion for summary judgment has yet been filed. (Docket No. 10) The Court therefore proceeds to review Martínez's proposed first amended complaint pursuant to the criteria of Rule 12(b)(6).

ii. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to move to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive the motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if, after accepting as true all non-conclusory factual allegations, the court can "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ocasio- Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). "Plausible, of course, means something more than merely possible, and gauging a pleaded situation's plausibility is a context-specific job that compels [a court] to draw on [its] judicial experience and common sense." Zenón v. Guzmán, 924 F.3d 611, 616 (1st Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012)). Additionally, "[w]hen . . . a complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked to - and admittedly dependent upon - a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged), that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Beddall v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co., 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998).

B. Analysis

UCA's motion to dismiss and its opposition to Martínez's motion to amend focus on the first two counts of Martínez's complaint. The Court will examine each cause of action separately.

1. Discrimination Based on Age

Martínez's first cause of action is discrimination based on age pursuant to the ADEA,...