ELIZABETH RIVERA-CAMACHO, BENJAMIN MEDINA-REYES; AND THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP MEDINA-RIVERA Plaintiff
v.
SOCIEDAD PRO HOSPITAL DEL NINO, INC.; BEIRA JARAMILLO-SUAREZ; AND JULIANA CANINO-RIVERA Defendants
CIVIL No. 20-1706 (RAM)
United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico
November 15, 2021
OPINION AND ORDER [1]
RAUL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is co-defendants Beira Jaramillo-Suarez and Juliana Canino-Rivera’s (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) Second Motion to Dismiss Complaint against Beira Jaramillo Suarez and Juliana Canino-Rivera (“Motion to Dismiss”). (Docket No. 21). For the foregoing reasons, Individual Defendants’ request is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2021, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Rivera-Camacho (“Rivera-Camacho”), Benjamin Medina-Reyes, and the conjugal partnership between them (subsequently “Plaintiffs”) filed their First Amended Complaint against the Individual Defendants and
1
Sociedad Pro Hospital del Nino, Inc. (the “SPHDN”) for unlawful employment practices that allegedly affected Rivera-Camacho’s employment at SPHDN. (Docket No. 16). Specifically, Rivera-Camacho claims that Defendants engaged in unlawful workplace retaliation and violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et. seq; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq.; Puerto Rico Act No. 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 §§ 146-151 (“Act 100”); and Puerto Rico Act No. 44 of July 2, 1985, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit.1 §§ 501, et seq (“Act 44”). Plaintiffs also allege violation of Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 §§ 5141-5142, Puerto Rico’s General Torts statute.
On May 11, 2021, Individual Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 21). Specifically, they argue that the individual claims against them should be dismissed for the following reasons: (a) neither the ADEA nor ADA provide for individual liability; (b) liability does not attach under Act 44 or Act 100; and (c) the allegations based on Articles 1802 and 1803 are based on the same alleged factual conduct that supports the federal and state employment claims, making damages thereunder unrecoverable. Id. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on June 24, 2021. (Docket No. 26).
2
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” When ruling on a motion to dismiss under this rule, courts must determine whether “all the facts alleged [in the complaint], when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, render...
