Rodriguez-Fonseca v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R.

899 F.Supp.2d 141

Julio RODRIGUEZ–FONSECA, Plaintiff,

v.BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. OF PUERTO RICO, Defendant.

Civil No. 10–2010 (DRD).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Sept. 30, 2012.

Anibal Escanellas–Rivera, Escanellas & Juan, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Juan J. Casillas–Ayala, Israel Fernandez–Rodriguez, Casillas, Santiago & Torres, LLC, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

DANIEL R. DOMINGUEZ, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 25). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2010, Julio Rodriguez–Fonseca filed a complaint against his employer, Baxter Healthcare Corporation of Puerto Rico, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12201 et seq. (“ADA”), and the Constitution of the United States of America. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff narrowed the scope of his claims in his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming he endured a hostile work environment, retaliation, and discrimination because of: 1) age, and 2) request for a reasonable accommodation for his purported disabilities. (Docket No. 37 at 1). Plaintiff requests “declaratory judgment against defendant ... find[ing] it in violation of the constitutions and laws of the United States ... and Puerto Rico,” $1.5 million for compensatory damages, loss of income, back pay, front pay, loss of benefits, mental anguish, and emotional distress, punitive damages and double damages, costs and fees, reinstatement, pre-judgment interest, and “such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate and proper.” (Docket No. 1 at 8–9).

On October 31, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 25), asserting that Plaintiff's allegations failed to sufficiently establish claims for a hostile work environment and age and disability discrimination and retaliation under F.R.C.P. 56. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. (Docket No. 25).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Below is a summary of the events leading to the filing of the instant complaint, as alleged in the parties' statements of uncontested facts and accompanying documents thereto (Docket Nos. 25 & 37).

On October 18, 2010, Julio Rodriguez–Fonseca (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against his former employer, Baxter Healthcare Corporation of Puerto Rico (“Defendant”), for age—and disability-based discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.

Defendant hired Plaintiff as the Superintendent of Injection Molding on September 20, 1999, when Plaintiff was 43. ( Id. at ¶¶ 7–9). Four years later, Defendant promoted Plaintiff, then 47, to serve as Manufacturing Manager of the Injection Molding Department. ( Id. at ¶ 10). Plaintiff's responsibilities included supervising machinery maintenance, the manufacturing section of the Injection Molding Department, and the workshop. ( Id. at ¶ 11–12). Plaintiff suffered from inguinal hernias for many years prior to dismissal, which required him to take leave and which Defendant always approved. (Docket No. 35, Exs. 3 at 40–41; 24–31).

While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff provided training sessions to other employees on good manufacturing and documentation practices and participated in over 300 training sessions for improving good manufacturing and documentation practices, known as GMP's and GDP's. ( Id. at ¶¶ 15–17). Upon hire, Plaintiff received, reviewed, and accepted Defendant's employment policies. (Docket No. 25, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 13–14). Defendant's employee handbook contains the company's rules of conduct applicable to all employees. Violations of employment terms include insubordination, OSHA violations, disobedience, abandoning the work area without authorization during working hours, and inadvertent or negligent commission of errors. ( Id. at ¶¶ 25–26).

Defendant's employee handbook establishes a procedure for employees to address employment situations or problems, specifically providing that “if an employee feels that he/she has a situation or complaint of discrimination or harassment in the workplace, he/she should immediately notify the Human Resources Manager or designated representative for the Company to take the necessary actions, which include conducting a thorough investigation.” ( Id. at ¶ 23). Furthermore, Defendant's policy prohibits any type of retaliation against any person who has submitted or otherwise notified a complaint of discrimination or harassment, or has participated in any related investigation. ( Id.)

Defendant operates three facilities in Jayuya, Aibonito, and Guayama, where it produces fluid therapy, anesthesia, critical care, oncology, bioscience, renal, nutrition, and specialized pharmacy materials for use in hospitals, kidney dialysis centers, doctors' offices, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, clinical and medical research laboratories, and at home under physician supervision. (Docket No. 25, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 2–4). Defendant's products are infused, injected, or inhaled more than two billion times annually (or six million times a day) worldwide, each time to treat a life-threatening acute or chronic condition. Patients with hemophilia, end-stage renal disease, “Primary Immune Deficiency,” and a range of other diseases depend on Defendant's products on a daily basis. ( Id. at ¶ 4).

The FDA conducts yearly inspections and audits of Defendant's facilities in Puerto Rico to ensure Defendant's compliance with applicable regulations. Defendant's failure to abide by the FDA rules may entail the imposition of sanctions that vary from monetary penalties up to the closing of a facility. ( Id. at ¶ 29). The Injection Molding Department is a critical area of Defendant's manufacturing process because it supplies key components of pieces that feed other areas of the process. ( Id. at ¶ 30). In the Injection Molding Department, Defendant manufactures, among other things, “Part 210,” a component part used in kits for the administration of intravenous fluids to patients, which are manufactured in subsequent stages at Defendant's facilities. As such, the Injection Molding Department is a key componentbecause other areas of the manufacturing process feed from the injection molding process. ( Id. at ¶ 31).

“Part 210” is manufactured through a process of injecting molding in a Swivel Mold. In order to control the temperature of this process, a liquid that works as a refrigerant is circulated through the cooling circuit of the Swivel Mold. ( Id. at ¶ 32). Leaks in the mold, but not the Swivel Mold or the cooling system, may come in direct contact with the product. ( Id. at ¶ 33). During March 2009, Defendant's injection molding personnel decided to use propylene glycol instead of distilled water to refrigerate and lubricate the Swivel Mold to minimize leaks. The decision was approved by Defendant's Environmental Department because propylene glycol was FDA-approved. ( Id. at ¶¶ 34, 36). The record indicates Plaintiff learned about the approval to use propylene glycol in August 2009, though Plaintiff also claims he first learned about use of propylene glycol in September. ( Id., Ex. 3, at 88–90; Docket No. 35, Ex. 3 at 115). In either scenario, Plaintiff states he knew Defendant's policy for using propylene glycol before October 2009.

On Friday, October 2, 2009, Swivel Mold 210 was mounted on the machinery to begin production; however, leaks from the refrigeration liquid halted work for the weekend. (Docket No. 25, Ex. 1 at ¶ 38). On October 5, 2009, injection molding personnel noticed that the refrigeration liquid used in the Swivel Mold 210 production process did not appear to be propylene glycol. Plaintiff purportedly directed his subordinate, Alberto Zayas, to purchase car coolant and subsequently instructed employee Cristobal Colon to add 2.5 gallons of car coolant to Swivel Mold 210. ( Id. at ¶ 39). Plaintiff disputes that he “ordered anyone to use car coolant in Swivel Mold 210,” (Docket No. 37 at ¶ 40), yet he plainly states he “ordered Zayas to purchase the ethylene glycol” to “try it out,” “requested ... information with regards to the results of the test that he ordered to be conducted with the car coolant on Swivel Mold 210 ...” and accepted “responsibility” for use of the car coolant, clearly admitting he directed employees to put car coolant into the Swivel Mold 210. ( Id. at ¶ 39; Docket No. 35, Ex. 3 at 99, 109–10.) (Emphasis added). Plaintiff admitted that using car coolant represents a health risk because it lacked FDA approval. He replied, “Of course, definitely,” when asked whether it was “important for [Plaintiff] not to produce material using car coolant,” and agreed that a mistake in production resulted from using car coolant. (Docket No. 35, Ex. 3 at 103–05, 121).

Defendant's personnel subsequently found production pieces contaminated with an unknown substance later adjudged as car coolant. Upon learning about the contamination, Defendant convened a multidisciplinary investigation team to determine why the Swivel Mold 210 leaked car coolant. (Docket 25, Ex. 1 at ¶ 46). Plaintiff failed to connect his directive to use the car coolant in early October 2009 with the discovered contaminated material until November 11, 2009, after a series of inquiries by various supervisors. (Docket No. 35, Ex. 3 at 123–24, 128). Plaintiff avers using car coolant in the Swivel Mold 210 constituted a “test” rather than “production,” a distinction seemingly without a difference, as the “test” nonetheless yielded leakage of an unapproved substance. Id.

On November 11, 2009, Plaintiff met with his immediate supervisor, Carlos Arroyo (“Arroyo”), to discuss the coolant use, and Arroyo requested that Plaintiff...