Dominguez v. Eli Lilly

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 97-1770 EDDIE DOMINGUEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Boudin, Circuit Judge. Rosa M. Nogueras De Gonzalez for appellant. Carl Schuster, with whom Maria Santiago De Vidal, Anabel Rodriguez Alonso, and Schuster Usera Aguilo & Santiago were on brief for appellees. March 6, 1998 Per Curiam. Having reviewed the parties briefs, read the record, and heard argument, we affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the same reasons as are set out in the court's comprehensive opinion. See Dominguez v. Eli Lilly & Co., 958 F. Supp. 721 (D.P.R. 1997). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to appellants, we, like the court below, can find no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether appellants were constructively discharged. See Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir. 1993). Appellants assert on appeal that the district court gave undue emphasis to the Puerto Rico district court's "anti- ferret" rule, D.P.R. R. 311.12, rather than following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56's requirement to evaluate all the record evidence. However, we see nothing inconsistent with Rule 56 in the requirements contained in the anti-ferret rule, and the court's reference to it. Moreover, in the alternative, the district court grounded its decision upon a reading of the full record, which it analyzed extensively and accurately. We find no merit in appellants' claim that the district court erroneously relied upon hearsay contained in the affidavit of Ricardo Flores Borgos. Appellants overstate both the hearsay nature of the affidavit and the importance of the alleged hearsay to the outcome of the case. In ruling on appellants' Rule 60(b) motion, the district court denied that it had relied at all on the contested sections of the affidavit. We discern no factual issue in this record. Affirmed. Costs to appellees.