Ramos v. Vizcarrondo

120 F.Supp.3d 93

Edwin RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Jose VIZCARRONDO, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 14–1722(GAG).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed Aug. 12, 2015.

Edwin Ramos, Trujillo Alto, PR, pro se.

Janitza M. Garcia–Marrero, Carolina Santa Cruz–Sadurni, Reynaldo A. Quintana–Latorre, Baerga & Quintana Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

GUSTAVO A. GELPI, District Judge.

On August 1, 2014, Edwin Ramos ("Plaintiff"), brought this employment discrimination action in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance against José R. Vizcarrondo ("Vizcarrondo–Carrión"), Linda Lebber Johnson ("Lebber"), José A. Vizcarrondo ("Vizcarrondo–Toro"), Julio E. Vizcarrondo–Ramírez ("Vizcarrondo–Ramírez"), and Nellie Carrión de Vizcarrondo ("Carrión de Vizcarrondo"), all in their personal capacities and with their respective conjugal partnerships; DM Group LLC; SMPC LLC; Metropolitan Builders LLC; Resort Builders LLC; VMV Enterprises Corporation; Desarrollos Metropolitanos LLC; 3V LLC; Monterrey Leasing LLC; TP Two LLC; Treasure Point LLC; Desarrollos Metropolitanos S.E.; Resort Builders, SE, Metropolitan Builders, S.E.; Desarrollow Metropolitanos, Inc.; Metropolitan Builders, Inc.; Institutional Builders, S.E.; Omega Vistamar S.E.; DMI Pension Plan Inc.; Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and its management; and José Nolla, Esq. ("Nolla") in his personal and official capacity in representation of Nolla & Palou P.S.C. Defendants later removed this case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants discriminated against him because of his gender and age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 –623 ; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ; the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C § 1201 ; the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 ; Puerto Rico Law No. 17 of April 22, 1988, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, §§ 155 et seq. ("Law 17"); Puerto Rico Law No. 115 of 1988, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 194 ("Law 115"); Puerto Rico Law No. 65 of 1986, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 185b ("Law 65"); Puerto Rico Law No. 69 of 1985, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 1340 ("Law 69"); and Puerto Rico Law No. 80 of May 30, 1976, P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 29, § 185 ("Law 80"). (See Docket No. 9–1.) Plaintiff essentially claims that Defendants in some way contributed to the unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination against him that terminated his employment. (Id. )

Presently before the court is Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). (Docket No. 29.)

I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

In 2001, Plaintiff applied for employment at BPPR and was scheduled for an interview. (Docket No. 9–1 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff was referred to the group of the defendant companies led by Vizcarrondo–Ramírez. (Id. ) Vizcarrondo–Ramírez, as managing partner, interviewed Plaintiff and made an offer of employment which Plaintiff accepted. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff then worked for Vizcarrondo–Ramírez and the defendant companies from October 15, 2001 to April 11, 2013. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff's compensation included a medical insurance plan, a bonus of no less than one month's salary, vacations accrued at a rate of 1.25 days for every 110 work hours, sick leave accrued at a rate of 1.15 days for every 110 work hours, short and long term non-occupational disability insurance, a weekly car wash, immediate participation in a Defined Benefit Plan, and other benefits. (Id. ) In his twelve years of working for the defendant companies, Plaintiff never received any negative comments and his work was always praised. (Id. ¶ 35.) For some of the years Plaintiff worked for the defendant companies, he also attended law school. (See ¶¶ 10, 40.) He was a hard-working and dedicated employee who contributed to the economic growth of the companies. (Id. ¶ 38.) At the end of 2005, when Plaintiff concluded his legal studies, he was offered a guaranteed salary of $120,000 per year to remain as an employee and remove himself from the employment market. (Id. ¶ 10.) It was then that his "employer"¹ offered to pay for a vehicle that Plaintiff had recently purchased. (Id. ) Thereafter, in December, 2007, Plaintiff and his wife purchased the residence in which they currently reside, at which point "the employer" assured Plaintiff he need not worry about his position because he would remain an employee of the company until they ran out of business which was unlikely. (Id. ¶ 71.)

During the summer of 2008, Plaintiff began studying for the Puerto Rico Bar and, upon realizing that he needed more time to study, he met with his employers. (Id. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff met with Vizcarrondo–Ramírez, Vizcarrondo–Carrión, and Vizcarrondo–Toro and asked them for time off to study for the bar. (Id. ) In response, Vizcarrondo–Ramírez and Vizcarrondo–Toro offered their unconditional support and authorized Plaintiff to take time for his studies as leave that would not affect his vacation time. (Id. ) However, Vizcarrondo–Carrión immediately objected, stating that Plaintiff was better off taking his "severance and going to hell." (Id. ¶ 43.) Nevertheless, Vizcarrondo–Ramírez allowed Plaintiff to take paid leave to study. (Id. ) Between the years 2009 and 2011, Vizcarrondo–Carrión insinuated on several occasions that he did not want Plaintiff in his company. (Id. ¶ 79.) For example, in 2008, after the change in Puerto Rico government, Vizcarrondo–Carrión told Plaintiff that because of the change in government no one could do anything to him, that he was going to remove Plaintiff from his employment, and that it would be better if Plaintiff left and saved himself the suffering. (Id. )

Thereafter, in July, 2010, the "the President" told Plaintiff that he was carrying out an investigation of all employees, especially Pablo López. (Id. ¶ 44.) "The President" hired Saint James Security Company's services to investigate and find out whether money or property was being stolen from within the company. (Id. ¶ 45.) Vizcarrondo² told Plaintiff that the investigation involved monitoring telephone calls, e-mails, and other related activities. (Id. ¶ 46.) Plaintiff told Vizcarrondo that the investigation seemed to involve illegal activity, and that such manners should be handled by the police. (Id. ¶ 47.) For the investigation, Vizcarrondo–Carrión also hired the services of Nolla and his law firm, Nolla, Palau & Casellas. (Id. ¶ 48.) Nolla and his law firm advised Vizcarrondo–Carrión and led the investigation that culminated with Pablo López's termination in October, 2010. (Id. ) After Pablo López's termination, Nolla pressured Plaintiff, insinuating that he would be the next employee to be terminated. (Id. ¶ 49.)

In January, 2011, Vizcarrondo–Carrión called Plaintiff into a meeting with Nolla to discuss the results of Pablo López's final interview and his termination settlement. (Id. ¶¶ 50, 55.) At this meeting, Plaintiff and Nolla disagreed on whether all employees were entitled to Law 80 compensation.³ (Id. ¶ 51.) Nolla argued that not all employees were entitled to Law 80 compensation, using Plaintiff as an example. (Id. ) Plaintiff disagreed. (Id. ¶ 52.) Nolla then told Plaintiff "you beat me with regards to the contract and compensation, but you are not beating me with regards to Law 80. We will go to the end with this, and I will take the case for free." (Id. ¶ 54.)

The next incident took place on March 3, 2011, when Nolla notified Plaintiff that a $250,000 compensation would suit him, that Plaintiff should not have to sue, and that Nolla would be able to make it so that Plaintiff's compensation was not taxed. (Id. ¶ 59.) In light of the lack of any employment relationship between Nolla and Plaintiff, Plaintiff could not understand how Nolla could decide and determine his employment, and offer any sort of compensation. (Id. ¶ 60.) A few days later, when Plaintiff told Vizcarrondo–Toro about his conversation with Nolla, Vizcarrondo–Toro suggested he speak with Vizcarrondo–Ramírez about the situation because he believed Nolla's actions involved Vizcarrondo–Carrión. (Id. ¶ 62.) Plaintiff then spoke directly with Vizcarrondo–Carrión who claimed he had nothing to do with Plaintiff's conversation with Nolla. (Id. ¶ 63.) Vizcarrondo–Carrión went on to say that Nolla was employee Ismael Sanchez's friend, and that maybe Ismael Sánchez was somehow involved. (Id. ) Plaintiff also told Vizcarrondo–Carrión that if he was not wanted in the company he would accept his Law 80 compensation and be on his way. (Id. )

Near the end of March, 2011, Vizcarrondo–Carrión informed Plaintiff that a group of employees were going to be "suspended," a term that he used to avoid using the word "terminated." (Id. ¶ 81.) The employees dismissed included Richard López ("López"), whose brother was Pablo López, the employee fired as a result of the previously-mentioned investigation. (Id. ¶ 82.) López was the only employee, aside from Plaintiff, that was terminated without his Law 80 compensation. (Id. ¶ 84.) Thus, Plaintiff alleges that López was terminated in retaliation for his brother's actions. (Id. ¶ 85.) Then, at a meeting in December, 2011, individuals witnessed the hostile and disrespectful way in which Vizcarrondo–Carrión treated Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 77.)

As a result of the aforementioned events, Plaintiff had to visit a Cardiologist. (Id. ¶ 78.) Plaintiff's cardiologist was later contacted by Plaintiff's "employer" who asked for information regarding Plaintiff's health. (Id. ) Thereafter, upon request from the cardiologist herself, Plaintiff stopped visiting her. (Id. ) Also towards the end of 2011, the work pressures began to affect Plaintiff's health, causing a spasm in his lower back. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiff alleges it was a physical manifestation of the stress and pressures he was being exposed to at work. (Id. ) Plaintiff's blood pressure has also increased to dangerous...