United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 10-1522
PEDRO L. RAMOS-ECHEVARRÍA, GLADYS RODRIGUEZ-GALARZA,
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
PICHIS, INC. d/b/a PICHIS HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER,
JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROE, INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Thompson, Selya and Dyk*
Circuit Judges.
Juan R. Rodríguez, with whom Rodriguez Lopez Law Offices,
P.S.C. was on brief, for appellants.
Manuel Núñez-Aragunde, with whom Martha L. Martínez Rodríguez
and Manuel A. Núñez Law Offices were on brief, for appellee.
October 21, 2011
*
Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Appellant Pedro Ramos-
Echevarría claims that his employer, Pichis Inc. d/b/a Pichis Hotel
and Convention Center (Pichis), discriminated against him because
of his medical condition - epilepsy - in violation of federal and
state statutes including the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA),
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The district judge entered summary
judgment in favor of Pichis, and Ramos-Echevarría appealed.
Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
As is required when reviewing an order granting summary
judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. See, e.g., Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Lavigne, 617 F.3d
82, 84 (1st Cir. 2010).
Ramos-Echevarría suffers from epilepsy. He takes
medication to control his condition. On average, he experiences
between nine and sixteen focal seizures - which he refers to as
“episodes” - each week. During a typical episode, he sees an
“aura” before his body begins convulsing for about eight to fifteen
seconds; he does not lose consciousness. His cognitive abilities
are also impaired during the episode, and sometimes for a short
time afterwards.
Ramos-Echevarría has worked for Pichis as a part-time
kitchen assistant since 1999, assisting the chef with food
preparation. Since 2002, he has held a similar second job at
-2-
another restaurant, Palacio Chino. Ramos-Echevarría informed
Pichis about his illness at the time he was hired by referencing it
on his job application.1 For the most part, his illness has not
affected his job performance.
Between three and six times each year, his episodes are
so severe that he has to leave work. But usually when he
experiences an episode at work, he simply stops moving until the
convulsions are over. He either stabilizes himself or is able to
notify his co-workers and they make sure he does not fall. Ramos-
Echevarría has never experienced an episode while working on a hot
surface. If he is working with a knife when he sees the aura, he
drops the knife until the convulsions are over. Once the
convulsions stop, he returns to work as soon as he is able.
Within the first week of his employment at Pichis, Ramos-
Echevarría experienced an episode. As Ramos-Echevarría tells it,
shortly thereafter Luis Emmanuelli, Sr. (Emmanuelli), who owns
Pichis, called Ramos-Echevarría into his office at 8:30 one morning
and told him that although he was an excellent worker, he could not
continue working there “because of [his] condition.” Emmanuelli
told Ramos-Echevarría that he had to leave the premises. Ramos-
Echevarría verbally requested a reasonable accommodation, but he
1
Despite Ramos-Echevarría’s disclosure claim, the copy of
the job application in the record does not include any reference to
his medical condition.
-3-
did not present medical documents in making the request.2 Sticking
by his decision to terminate Ramos-Echevarría, Emmanuelli
responded, “no, there’s no reasonable accommodation for you, or for
anybody else.”
Ramos-Echevarría walked to the gate outside and then
returned to Pichis and asked for a letter stating the reason for
his dismissal. Emmanuelli’s assistant told him to come back at
11 a.m.
When Ramos-Echevarría returned later that day, he spoke
with Luisito Emmanuelli (Luisito), Emmanuelli’s son. Luisito told
Ramos-Echevarría that Pichis had “reconsidered taking you back,
because you’re an excellent worker,” and that he could continue
working for Pichis if he got a statement from his doctor confirming
that his medical condition did not prevent him from performing his
job duties. Ramos-Echevarría got a medical certificate from his
doctor stating that his condition “does not prevent his working; he
should not drive a car, climb up to high places without protection,
[use] instruments that may be harmful to his health” and provided
it to Pichis. Pichis re-hired Ramos-Echevarría, and he has
continued to work there as a part-time kitchen assistant ever since
producing the medical certificate. Throughout his employment,
2
Ramos-Echevarría later testified that the accommodation
he sought was to be moved to a housekeeping or maintenance
position, although it is unclear whether he communicated that to
Emmanuelli.
-4-
Ramos-Echevarría has continued to suffer from seizures. Pichis has
never denied him medical assistance.
Ramos-Echevarría claims that he verbally requested full-
time employment from Pichis but did not get it. He also asserts
that Luisito told him that he would never be authorized to work
full-time because of his epilepsy. He further contends that while
he has been working for Pichis, other people - who were hired after
him - were given additional hours or increased to full-time
positions. Pichis counters that it did not increase Ramos-
Echevarría’s hours because business was slow.
How We Got to This Point
Ramos-Echevarría filed a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Pichis
discriminated against him because of his medical condition. On
August 23, 2006, the EEOC issued Ramos-Echevarría a Notice of Right
to Sue under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28.
In 2006, Ramos-Echevarría sued Pichis3 in the District of
Puerto Rico, alleging violations of Puerto Rico law and federal law
3
Ramos-Echevarría also sued “John Doe” and “Richard Roe,”
whom he identified as “those persons who are in any way responsible
for the events that gave rise to this claim,” and “insurance
companies of all the defendants.” Ramos-Echevarría did not serve
the complaint on any other defendant or move to substitute actual
defendants for the fictional parties, so the case proceeded with
Pichis as the sole defendant.
-5-
including the ADA,4 Title VII,5 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.6 Ramos-
Echevarría’s primary contention was that during his tenure, he was
not promoted or offered a full-time position, while other employees
hired after him were promoted to full-time. He also complained of
several more minor actions that he argues were discriminatory -
that he never received a performance evaluation; that he worked
through meal breaks for which he was not paid; that he was excluded
from an employee meeting; that he once received a written warning
for beginning his shift half-an-hour early; and that Pichis created
a hostile work environment.
Pichis moved for summary judgment. A magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation proposing that the district
court (1) grant summary judgment in favor of Pichis on Ramos-
Echevarría’s claims under the ADA; (2) dismiss Ramos-Echevarría’s
Title VII and section 1983 claims for failure to state claims
because those statutes do not encompass claims based on
4
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against
qualified individuals on the basis of disability in regard to the
terms, conditions and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112
(a) (1990).
5
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against
individuals “because of such individual’s race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
6
Section 1983 provides a cause of action against those
who, acting under color of state law, violate federal law. 42
U.S.C. § 1983; see also Rodríguez-Cirilo v. García, 115 F.3d 50, 52
(1st Cir. 1997).
-6-
disability;7 and (3) dismiss without prejudice his claims arising
under Puerto Rico law. Over Ramos-Echevarría’s objections, the
district court adopted the report and recommendation in toto. This
appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Disability Claim
We review the district court’s order granting summary
judgment de novo. Penn-Am. Ins. Co., 617 F.3d at 84. We affirm if
the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, shows no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. A party
alleging discrimination may not rest on allegations made in the
pleadings, but instead must point to specific evidence supporting
his claim. See Soto-Ocasio v. Fed. Express Corp., 150 F.3d 14, 18
(1st Cir. 1998).
The ADA was enacted for “the elimination or reduction of
physical and social structures that impede people with some
present, past, or perceived impairments from contributing,
according to their talents, to our Nation’s social, economic and
civil life . . . .” Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 536 (2004)
(Ginsburg, J., concurring). It prohibits an employer from
discriminating against a qualified person with a disability in
regard to “job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or
7
Ramos-Echevarría does not pursue these claims on appeal.
-7-
discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and
other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” because of
his or her disability or perceived disability. 42 U.S.C.
§ 12112(a) (1990).
To prevail on a disability discrimination claim, a
plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he (1)
has a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (2) is qualified to
perform the essential functions of the job, with or without
reasonable accommodations; and (3) was subject to an adverse
employment action based in whole or part on his disability. See
Soto-Ocasio, 150 F.3d at 18; Jacques v. Clean-Up Group, Inc., 96
F.3d 506, 511 (1st Cir. 1996). He may prove his case by presenting
direct evidence of discrimination or he may prove it indirectly “by
using the prima facie case and burden shifting methods that
originated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 . . .
(1973).” Jacques, 96 F.3d at 511 (quoting Katz v. City Metal Co.,
87 F.3d 26, 30 n.2 (1st Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The McDonnell Douglas analysis requires the plaintiff to
offer evidence sufficient to establish that he “(i) has a
disability within the meaning of the [ADA]; (ii) is qualified to
perform the essential functions of the job, with or without
reasonable accommodations; (iii) was subject to an adverse
employment action by a company subject to the [ADA]; (iv) was
replaced by a non-disabled person or was treated less favorably
-8-
than non-disabled employees; and (v) suffered damages as a result.”
Id. If he establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
its action. Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91,
99 (1st Cir. 2007); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at
802. If the employer offers a non-discriminatory reason, the
burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the
employer’s justification is mere pretext cloaking discriminatory
animus. Freadman, 484 F.3d at 99. Our review of the record
indicates that Ramos-Echevarría’s case stumbles at the very first
step – making out a prima facie case showing that he has a
disability as that term is used in the ADA.
Under the ADA, a disability is a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individual’s
major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (1990). Disability
may also be established by having a record of such an impairment or
being regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12102(2)(B), (C) (1990); see also Santiago Clemente v. Exec.
Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 2000). Ramos-Echevarría
contends that he actually has an impairment and that he also has a
record of such an impairment. He does not argue that Pichis
regarded him as having such an impairment.
We apply a three-part analysis to determine whether an
impairment qualifies as a disability under the ADA. See Bragdon v.
-9-
Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998); Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d
231, 238 (1st Cir. 2002). First, the plaintiff must establish that
he suffers from a physical or mental impairment.8 Carroll, 294
F.3d at 238. Second, he must demonstrate that it affects life
activities that are “major,” i.e., “of central importance to daily
life.” Id. Major life activities are basic activities of daily
life that an average person in the general population can perform
with little or no difficulty – “functions such as caring for
oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)
(1991). Finally, he must show that the impairment “substantially
limits” the identified major life activity. Carroll, 294 F.3d at
238 (citing Lebrón-Torres v. Whitehall Labs., 251 F.3d 236, 239-40
(1st Cir. 2001)).
In assessing whether someone is disabled under the ADA,
we must consider the impairment’s effect on the particular
individual. Katz, 87 F.3d at 32. The limitation caused by the
impairment must be permanent or long-term. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky.,
Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 198 (2002); see also 29 C.F.R.
8
The EEOC defines an impairment as “[a]ny physiological
disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss
affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological,
musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including
speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-
urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or any mental or
physiological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain
syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning
disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (1991).
-10-
§§ 1630.2(j)(2)(ii), (iii) (1991). Evidence of a medical diagnosis
of impairment, standing alone, is insufficient to prove a
disability. See Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 534 U.S. at 198.
What is required is evidence showing that the impairment limits
this particular plaintiff to a substantial extent. See Carroll,
294 F.3d at 238 (quoting Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 534 U.S. at
691-92) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Step 1: Whether There is an Impairment
The parties concede that Ramos-Echevarría suffers from an
impairment - epilepsy - so we proceed to examine the second and
third factors in the disability analysis.
Step 2: Whether The Impairment Affects a Major Life Activity
Establishing disability under the ADA is an
individualized inquiry. See Carroll, 294 F.3d at 238. To prevail,
a plaintiff must show that his impairment affects a major life
activity. Id. Courts have required the plaintiff to specify the
major life activity in which he claims to be substantially limited.
See, e.g., Berry v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 490 F.3d 1211, 1216 (10th
Cir. 2007); Sinkler v. Midwest Prop. Mgmt. Ltd. P’ship, 209 F.3d
678, 683 (7th Cir. 2000).
Ramos-Echevarría argues that his impairment – epilepsy –
affects a major life activity – his ability to work. He contends
that he cannot perform this major life activity or that he is
substantially limited in performing it, as compared to the average
-11-
person in the general population. Working can be considered a
major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (1991). Yet, other
than showing that he has to stop working temporarily when he has an
episode, Ramos-Echevarría has introduced no evidence showing any
particular way in which his illness affects his ability to work.
Although his medical certificate indicates that he cannot perform
certain activities (driving, climbing without protection, and using
certain instruments), he is not required to engage in any of those
tasks in the course of his work as a kitchen assistant.
Ramos-Echevarría also failed to introduce evidence that
his impairment affects a major life activity outside of the
workplace. He testified that he engages in a typical daily
routine. For example, he discussed playing at the park with
children, completing regular household chores, and even remodeling
his house (with the exception that he was unable to climb up to put
a parapet on the house). Similarly, Ramos-Echevarría’s medical
certificate does not show that his epilepsy affects any major life
activities. Other jurisdictions have held that on their own,
driving a car and climbing heights are not major life activities.
See, e.g., Kellogg v. Energy Safety Servs. Inc., 544 F.3d 1121,
1126 (10th Cir. 2008) (driving is not a major life activity under
the ADA); Rogers v. Int’l Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755, 758
n.2 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Climbing is not such a basic, necessary
-12-
function . . . [as] to qualify as a major life activity under the
ADA.”).
With this in mind, we proceed to the third step in the
disability analysis - whether Ramos-Echevarría’s epilepsy
substantially limits his ability to work.
Step 3: Whether the Impairment “Substantially Limits”
the Identified Major Life Activity
To satisfy the third element in a disability analysis
under the ADA, a plaintiff must “prove a disability by offering
evidence that the extent of the limitation in terms of [his] own
experience . . . is substantial.” Albertson’s, Inc. v.
Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 567 (1999).
The EEOC defines “substantially limits” as “[u]nable to
perform a major life activity that the average person in the
general population can perform”; or “[s]ignificantly restricted as
to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can
perform a particular major life activity as compared to the
condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the
general population can perform that same major life activity.”9 29
C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (1991). As applied to working, the EEOC
9
Although Congress amended the ADA in 2008 to include a
more liberal standard for “disability,” ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
Pub. L. No. 110-325, § 3, 122 Stat. 3553-55 (2008), those
amendments became effective on January 1, 2009 and do not apply
retroactively. Thornton v. United Parcel Serv., 587 F.3d 27, 34
n.3 (1st Cir. 2009). The events in this case occurred before
January 1, 2009, so we apply the more restrictive standard in
effect at that time.
-13-
defines “substantially limits” as “significantly restricted in the
ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs
in various classes as compared to the average person having
comparable training, skills, and abilities. The inability to
perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial
limitation . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1991); Toyota
Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 534 U.S. at 200 (citing Sutton v. United
Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 492 (1999)).
In evaluating a plaintiff’s claim, we must consider
available corrective or mitigative measures. “To be sure, a person
whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by mitigating
measures still has an impairment, but if the impairment is
corrected it does not ‘substantially limit’ a major life activity.”
Sutton, 527 U.S. at 482. Accordingly, we must assess whether
Ramos-Echevarría is substantially limited under the ADA while he is
taking medication to control his epilepsy.
Ramos-Echevarría himself provides perhaps the key
evidence showing that his epilepsy does not substantially limit his
ability to work. Although he testified in his deposition that a
couple of times each year he experiences such severe seizures that
he has to leave work, when asked, he testified that his medical
condition does not significantly affect his work: “No, it doesn’t
limit me, but rather . . . I stop for a moment and go back to the
activity I was . . . engaged in, again.” He further testified that
-14-
he has never applied for Social Security benefits “[b]ecause I feel
capable to work. If the time ever comes when I feel disabled, and
truly am unable to work, then I’ll apply.”
In addition to Ramos-Echevarría’s testimony, other
evidence shows that he is not substantially limited in his ability
to work. The medical certificate that Ramos-Echevarría gave to
Pichis states that his epilepsy does not impede him from working.
Even though it also says that he should not use certain
instruments, Ramos-Echevarría admits that he routinely works with
knives and ovens in the workplace and has not experienced any
problems. Moreover, Emmanuelli and Luisito told Ramos-Echevarría
that he was an “excellent worker.” Furthermore, since 2002, he has
held a second job at another restaurant, Palacio Chino.
Ramos-Echevarría, nevertheless, attempts to show that his
epilepsy substantially limits him from working in a substantial
class or broad range of jobs. He cites statistics showing that a
diagnosis of epilepsy is relatively rare and that the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services characterizes epilepsy as a “chronic
disease.” He notes that he requires medication, that he sometimes
requires medical treatment and hospitalization for his seizures,
and that he cannot drive, climb ladders, or handle certain tools.
From this, he contends that he is substantially limited in
performing a broad class of jobs compared to the average person in
-15-
the general population. See Carroll, 294 F.3d at 239 (considering
whether plaintiff can show he is significantly restricted in his
ability to perform “a class of jobs” or a “broad range of jobs in
various classes”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although Ramos-Echevarría’s epilepsy clearly affects his
life, the evidence in the record falls short of showing that it
substantially limits him from working in any broad class of jobs or
any broad range of jobs in various classes. See id. at 240. The
record contains no expert vocational testimony or labor market
statistics supporting Ramos-Echevarría’s contention that his
epilepsy substantially limits him from performing jobs other than
his own. See id. “[A] conclusory allegation without evidentiary
support” is insufficient to carry Ramos-Echevarría’s burden of
establishing a prima facie case. See id.
The evidence in the record, including Ramos-Echevarría’s
own statements, plainly reveals that he is not substantially
limited - as that term is defined in the ADA - in his ability to
work or in other major daily life activities.
Record of Impairment
Relying upon an alternative point of entry in the ADA,
Ramos-Echevarría claims that he has a record of a substantially
limiting impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B) (1990). The EEOC
defines an individual with a record of such an impairment as
someone who has “a history of, or has been misclassified as having,
-16-
a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k) (1991). The
“record” provision in the ADA protects “those who have recovered or
are recovering from substantially limiting impairments from
discrimination based on their medical history.” Román-Oliveras v.
P.R. Elec. Power Auth., No. 09-1503, 2011 WL 3621548, at *4 (1st
Cir. Aug. 18, 2011) (citing Bailey v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 306 F.3d
1162, 1169 (1st Cir. 2002)).
Ramos-Echevarría points to his medical records showing
that he has received medical treatment for his seizures in support
of his argument that he has a “record of impairment.” However,
these records (many pages of which are illegible or written only in
Spanish, and all of which appear to be irrelevant, given that
Ramos-Echevarría’s diagnosis and medications are not disputed) do
not suggest that his epilepsy has ever substantially limited him in
working or in performing any other major life activities. Thus,
although Ramos-Echevarría has a record of having epilepsy, he does
not have a record of an impairment that substantially limits his
ability to perform a major life activity. Therefore, he is not
entitled to relief under the “record of impairment” prong of the
ADA. See Doebele v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117, 1132
(10th Cir. 2003) (employee who had been completely unable to work
for a short time did not qualify for relief based on a “record of
impairment”); Rakity v. Dillon Cos., 302 F.3d 1152, 1159 (10th Cir.
-17-
2002) (supermarket employee with substantial limitations in his
ability to perform manual tasks including lifting and reaching did
not qualify for relief based on a “record of impairment”).
Because Ramos-Echevarría failed to establish that he
falls within the ADA’s provisions, we need not address whether
Pichis discriminated against him because of an impairment or record
of impairment. Similarly, we do not need to consider Pichis’
alternative argument that Ramos-Echevarría’s claims are time-
barred.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
In addition to his federal claims, Ramos-Echevarría
asserts state-law claims against Pichis. After concluding that
there was no triable federal cause of action, the district court
chose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed
without prejudice the claims based on Puerto Rico law.
We review a district court’s unwillingness to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. Newman v.
Burgin, 930 F.2d 955, 963 (1st Cir. 1991). The district court has
considerable authority whether to exercise this power, considering
factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness to
litigants, and comity. Id.
When a plaintiff’s anchor claim is a federal cause of
action and the court unfavorably disposes of the plaintiff’s
-18-
federal claim at the early stages of a suit, well before trial, the
court generally dismisses any supplemental state-law claims without
prejudice. Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177
(1st Cir. 1995); see also Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 990 (1st
Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal without prejudice of pendent claims
when the district court determined “far in advance of trial that no
legitimate federal question existed”). We affirm the basis of the
district court order granting summary judgment on Ramos-
Echevarría’s federal claim and conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ramos-Echevarría’s state-law
claims without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Based on a record that reveals no material factual
dispute as to whether Ramos-Echevarría is disabled within the
meaning of the ADA, the district court properly granted summary
judgment in favor of Pichis on his ADA claim. After disposing of
this claim, the district court acted within its discretion in
dismissing without prejudice his state-law claims. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court judgment.
-19-