Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt v. Ingersoll-Rand De P.R., Inc.

GIORGIO ZAMPIEROLLO-RHEINFELDT, Plaintiff, v. INGERSOLL-RAND DE PUERTO RICO, INC. and/or TRANE PUERTO RICO,and/or TRANE PUERTO RICO LLC, Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 15-1255 (RAM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

February 21, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, District Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendants Ingersoll-Rand de Puerto Rico, Inc. and/or Trane Puerto Rico, and/or Trane Puerto Rico LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion for Summary Judgment" or "MSJ") alongside a Statement of Uncontested Material Facts ("SUMF") and accompanying exhibits. (Docket Nos. 19 and 20). For the reasons set below, having considered the parties' submissions and in opposition and support of the same, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 19).

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Giorgio Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt ("Zampierollo" or "Plaintiff") sued Ingersoll-Rand Puerto Rico, Inc. and/or Trane Puerto Rico, and/or Trane Puerto Rico LLC (collectively, "Defendants") seeking monetary damages and declaratory relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. and under Puerto Rico Law 100, 29 P.R. Laws Ann. tit §146 et seq. ("Law 100") and Law 80, 29 P.R. Laws Ann. tit §146 et seq. ("Law 80"). (Docket No. 1 at 7-9). Generally, Zampierollo averred he was wrongfully discharged because of his age and his duties were instead assigned to two (2) younger employees. Id. at 7 ¶¶ 44-45.

On January 8, 2016, Defendants filed their MSJ alongside an SUMF. (Docket Nos. 19 and 20). Plaintiff then filed an opposition to the MSJ (Docket No. 30) and an opposition to Defendants' SUMF accompanied by additional uncontested facts ("Opposition to SUMF"). (Docket No. 31).¹ Lastly, Defendants replied to Zampierollo's Opposition to SUMF ("Response") (Docket No. 37) and Opposition ("Reply"). (Docket No. 39). The Court will herein address the pending MSJ and parties' responses and oppositions.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is proper if "the movant shows [...] no genuine dispute as to any material fact" and that they are "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine if the evidence "is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the [non-movant's] favor." Mercado-Reyes v. City of Angels, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 344, 347 (D.P.R.2018) (quotation omitted). A fact is material if "it is relevant to the resolution of a controlling legal issue raised by the motion for summary judgment." Bautista Cayman Asset Co. v. Terra II MC & P, Inc., 2020 WL 118592, at *6 (D.P.R. 2020) (quotation omitted).

The moving party has "the initial burden of demonstrat[ing] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with definite and competent evidence." Mercado-Reyes, 320 F. Supp. 34 at 347 (quotation omitted). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, to present "competent evidence to rebut the motion." Bautista Cayman Asset Co., 2020 WL 118592, at 6* (quoting Méndez-Laboy v. Abbott Lab., 424 F.3d 35, 37 (1st Cir. 2005). A nonmoving party must show "that a trialworthy issue persists." Paul v. Murphy, 2020 WL 401129, at *3 (1st Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).

While a court will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, it will disregard conclusory allegations, unsupported speculation and improbable inferences. See Johnson v. Duxbury, Massachusetts, 931 F.3d 102, 105 (1st Cir. 2019). Moreover, the existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not affect an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379 (2007) (quotation omitted). Hence, a court should review the record in its entirety and refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000).

Finally, Local Rule 56 also governs summary judgment. See D.P.R. Civ. R. 56. Per this Rule, a nonmoving party must "admit, deny or qualify the facts supporting the [summary judgment] motion [...] by reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts." Id. The First Circuit has highlighted that "[p]roperly supported facts [...] shall be deemed admitted unless controverted in the manner prescribed by the local rule." Advanced Flexible Circuits, Inc. v. GE Sensing & Inspection Techs. GmbH, 781 F.3d 510, 520 (1st Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

After analyzing Defendants' SUMF (Docket No. 20) and Plaintiff's Additional Statements of Uncontested Facts ("ASUF") (Docket No. 31), and then only crediting material facts that are properly supported by a record citation and uncontroverted, the Court makes the following findings of facts:

1. Plaintiff was born on April 1, 1958. (Docket No. 20 ¶ 1).

2. Plaintiff began his employment with Trane in 1980 as a Sales Engineer. (Id. ¶ 2).

3. Plaintiff received three (3) promotions throughout his career with Trane. In 2000, he was promoted to District General Manager for Puerto Rico. (Id. ¶ 3).

4. Plaintiff was over forty (40) years old when he was promoted to District General Manager. (Id. ¶ 4).

5. As District General Manager, Plaintiff was accountable for the operation of the Puerto Rico office. (Id. ¶ 5).

6. He was responsible for the management and leadership of the same consisting of Parts, Equipment, Service and Contracting in Trane Puerto Rico, Inc; he was a key member in developing and executing Trane's strategy of establishing island wide distribution channels and gaining influence with decision-makers and was responsible for overall performance of island wide operations. (Docket No. 31 ¶ 3).

7. All sales channels, dealer channels and Direct and Indirect Sales Channels, along with the Logistic Manager and Marketing reported directly or indirectly to Plaintiff as District General Manager. The sales channels reported indirectly to Plaintiff through Mr. Juan Carlos Teruel ("Teruel"). (Id. ¶ 4).

8. Safety, Controls, Contracting, Service, and Project Administration reported directly or indirectly to Plaintiff. Controls, Contracting and Services reported indirectly through Luis Andrés, Operations Manager. (Id.¶ 5).

9. Plaintiff had the highest salary in the office and Luis Andrés had the second highest salary. (Id. ¶ 6).

10. Between 2012 and 2013, Plaintiff estimates that Trane's Puerto Rico office had approximately one hundred (100) employees. (Docket No. 20 ¶ 6).

11. Of those employees, Plaintiff estimates that about one third (1/3) were over forty (40) years old. (Id. ¶ 7).

12. Plaintiff had six (6) managers who reported directly to him, of which four (4) were over forty (40). (Id. ¶ 8).

13. Around 2012, Defendants' President, William Sekkel, who was older than Plaintiff at the time he retired, retired from Trane. (Id. ¶ 13-14).

14. Ms. María Blasé ("Blasé") was then announced as President. (Id. ¶ 13).

15. Ms. Blasé visited the Puerto Rico office in September of 2012. (Id. ¶ 15).

16. During that visit, Plaintiff met with Ms. Blasé, and they discussed the business of the Puerto Rico office. (Id. ¶ 16).

17. According to Plaintiff, Ms. Blasé was "very emphatic" about reducing the Sales, General, and Administrative (SG&A") expenses of the company. (Id. ¶ 17).

18. Plaintiff presented his yearly plan for the office for 2013 to Ms. Blasé, which included a negative outlook for growth in Puerto Rico, and reflected that the office was not on target to meet its numbers for 2013. (Id. ¶ 18).

19. Ms. Blasé told Plaintiff that the organization had to look to reduce its expenses. (Id. ¶ 19).

20. She requested that Plaintiff reduce the projected SG&A for the 2013 yearly plan. (Id. ¶ 20).

21. Around May 2013, Plaintiff began to report to Mr. Enrique Flefel ("Flefel"), who was promoted from Business Leader of Trane's Chile office to Vice President of North Latin America, which included Puerto Rico. (Id. ¶¶ 11 and 23).

22. Plaintiff did not suffer any change to his terms, duties, compensation or other employment benefits once Mr. Flefel became his supervisor. (Id. ¶ 25).

23. When Mr. Flefel took over the North Latin America region, the Puerto Rico office which had seen a significant reduction in sales compared to the previous year and had one of the highest SG&A expenses of the region. (Id. ¶ 27).

24. The SG&A for the Puerto Rico Office in 2012 was $5,914,000.00, around 17.4% of the office's revenue. (Id.¶ 28).

25. The SG&A for 2013 was budgeted to be $5,833,000.00, around $16.7% of the year's gross income. (Id. ¶ 29).

26. Around June 2013, Mr. Flefel expressed concern to Plaintiff and Ms. Brenda Fuentes ("Fuentes"), the Puerto Rico Finance Director, and inquired as to how to ensure the office reached its targets. (Id. ¶ 31).

27. According to Ms. Fuentes, the Puerto Rico office was not meeting its targets with regards to Operating Income ("OI"), costs, the gross margin or SG&A. (Id. ¶ 33).

28. Given Puerto Rico's economic situation, Mr. Flefel understood that increasing revenue was not an option to stabilize the Puerto Rico office, so instead he focused on reduction of costs. (Id. ¶ 34).

29. Mr. Flefel worked with the Puerto Rico office management to identify where the office could reduce expenses, such as renegotiating the lease or sub-leasing office space, lowering benefit costs, and cutting the marketing budget. (Id. ¶ 35).

30. Since around late June 2013, Plaintiff was aware that a reduction in labor costs might be necessary as a result of low sales and high SG&A. (Id. ¶ 37).

31. Approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of the office's expenses were salaries and benefits. (Id. ¶ 39).

32. The largest expenses in the Puerto Rico office were always payroll and the rent, but nothing could be done about the rent. (Docket No. 31 ¶ 26).

33. Mr. Flefel began considering a new organizational structure for the Puerto Rico office around July 2013. (Docket No. 20 ¶ 40).

34. During summer 2013,

...