United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 99-1789
NILSA SANTIAGO-RAMOS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CENTENNIAL P.R. WIRELESS CORP.;
ABC INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Jesús A. Castellanos, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Campbell and Wallace,* Senior Circuit Judges.
_____________________
Judith Berkan, with whom Mary Jo Méndez and Berkan/Méndez were
on brief, for appellant.
Marshal D. Morgan, with whom Edwin J. Seda-Fernández, Isabel
Abislaiman and Axtmayer Adsuar Muñiz & Goyco, P.S.C. were on brief,
for appellee Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp.
____________________
July 6, 2000
____________________
*
Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
WALLACE, Circuit Judge. Nilsa Santiago-Ramos sued her
former employer, Centennial P.R. Wireless Corporation (Centennial),
for sex discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), and
for violations of Puerto Rico law. A magistrate judge, sitting by
consent of the parties, entered summary judgment for Centennial.
The district court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, and we have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand.
I
Our review of the record is in a light most favorable to
the party opposing summary judgment. Dávila-Pérez v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 202 F.3d 464, 466 (1st Cir. 2000).
Centennial, a subsidiary of New Jersey-based Centennial
Cellular Corp. (parent company), is a telecommunications business
that began operations in Puerto Rico in early 1996. Amaury Rivera,
Centennial's vice president and general manager, and Thomas Bucks,
chief financial officer and comptroller of the parent company,
interviewed Santiago-Ramos for a position as Centennial's director
of finance and administration. Rivera gave Santiago-Ramos a
written job offer dated June 12, 1996, which she accepted and
returned as requested. Santiago-Ramos was chosen over two male
applicants and received several work assignments before formally
beginning work on July 1, 1996. She also signed a 90-day
-2-
probationary contract dated July 1, but she disputes that the
probationary contract is valid.
Santiago-Ramos was the only female among Centennial's
four high-level executives. She was responsible for Centennial's
finance, certain personnel matters (including oversight
responsibility for the drafting and implementation of an employee
manual), and some inventory assignments. Because Centennial was
beginning operations in Puerto Rico, all employees'
responsibilities were somewhat fluid and all were expected to work
more than the normal 40-hour work week. Santiago-Ramos reported
directly to Rivera in Puerto Rico and to Bucks at the parent
company. Phil Mayberry, the parent company's senior vice president
for Puerto Rico operations, was Rivera's direct supervisor and
oversaw all Puerto Rico operations from his parent company office.
At the time she worked for Centennial, Santiago-Ramos had
one child and planned to have another child within several years.
After beginning work, she was directly asked about her ability to
balance work and family obligations. In one instance, Rivera asked
Santiago-Ramos whether it was possible for her to handle
simultaneously her job, child care, and marital responsibilities.
Several times, he questioned how her husband was managing,
considering she was not home to cook for him. The questions were
not asked only by Rivera: two weeks before she was dismissed,
Mayberry asked Santiago-Ramos how well her work was proceeding in
light of her child. She responded that her work was going well and
that she planned to have a second child within several years.
-3-
Mayberry stated that having another child was a lot of work, and he
questioned whether Santiago-Ramos could perform her job effectively
after having a second child. She responded that she would be able
to meet both work and family obligations. Santiago-Ramos sensed
that Mayberry disliked her response.
Another incident directly involved Santiago-Ramos,
Rivera, and Mayberry. During Santiago-Ramos' tenure at Centennial,
the company planned a major job fair at which a large number of
employees would be hired. In preparation for the event, Rivera met
with Santiago-Ramos and an advertising consultant. Rivera
discussed a profile he drafted identifying the people the company
was and was not interested in hiring. The profile purportedly
excluded from consideration as Centennial employees older persons
with heavy non-work commitments, married women, and women with
children. Rivera told Santiago-Ramos that the profile was "nothing
personal against you," but that he preferred unmarried, childless
women because they would give 150% to the job. Later in this
meeting, Rivera telephoned Mayberry, read the profile to him, and
Mayberry approved it. Santiago-Ramos told Rivera that she opposed
the profile, stating it was discriminatory. However, she never
reported her objection to Mayberry or any other parent company
representative. She did not actually see the profile, and
questions regarding marriage and children were not included on the
interview questionnaire used at the job fair.
Nor were these the only comments made by Rivera and
Mayberry concerning women employees and pregnancy. For instance,
-4-
Rivera allowed Santiago-Ramos to choose his new secretary.
Santiago-Ramos hired Toni Mejías, a mother of two. When Rivera
later discovered that Mejías had two children, he questioned
Santiago-Ramos about whether her choice was a good one. On another
occasion, Mayberry and a number of employees from the parent
company visited Puerto Rico to assist in the Centennial job fair.
Upon noticing that Santiago-Ramos was speaking with another female
employee, Mayberry called out to nearby male employees, "guys watch
out with the females, next thing we know they will be running the
company." Also, Mejías heard Mayberry state that he did not like
women with children working at Centennial. Other evidence puts
Mayberry's comments in perspective: Bucks testified in a
deposition that it did not surprise him that Mayberry questioned
whether women with children could fulfill work responsibilities,
and Rivera referred to Mayberry as a "big time machista."
Mayberry and Rivera were not the only Centennial and
parent company employees who made comments about women, work, and
children. We relate several instances by way of illustration. Two
employees in Santiago-Ramos' department stated that a secretary at
Centennial who was on maternity leave should not have become
pregnant so soon after joining the company and that she would most
likely be fired as a result. These same employees told Santiago-
Ramos and Mejías separately that they should not get pregnant or
they would be fired. On a trip Santiago-Ramos took for training at
the parent company, one of the parent company's directors
complained to Santiago-Ramos that his secretary stopped working
-5-
late after having children, and "that is what happens when we hire
females in the child-bearing years." A parent company employee,
who came to Puerto Rico to assist with the job fair, told Santiago-
Ramos that he was "in the interviewing mood," and asked her in
front of a number of other employees how long she had been married,
how many children she had, and what their ages were.
During her three months' employment at Centennial,
several problems occurred that Centennial, at least partially,
attributes to her. First, when a shipment of 500 telephones
crucial to Centennial's telecommunications operations arrived, five
telephones, with a combined value of $2000, were missing.
Santiago-Ramos had inventory responsibility over this shipment, and
that these units were missing was not discovered until several days
after the telephones arrived. Second, Centennial incurred
demurrage charges on a shipment containing communications towers
because they were picked up at the San Juan docks late. However,
Santiago-Ramos denies that she was responsible for ensuring that
the towers were properly received. Third, electrical service was
cut off at several Centennial locations because utility bills were
unpaid. Santiago-Ramos was responsible to pay these bills, and
Centennial bore reconnect charges to restore power. Fourth, the
Centennial employee manual, over which Santiago-Ramos had ultimate
oversight responsibility, was not completed during her employment.
Because Centennial was a start-up company, its employees
were under constant evaluation. Nevertheless, neither Bucks nor
Rivera ever told Santiago-Ramos that her work was unsatisfactory.
-6-
When Santiago-Ramos came to the parent company for training two
weeks before her dismissal, Mayberry stated that he had no
intention of firing her. Rivera reported that up to the day
Mayberry instructed him to do so, he also had no intention of
firing her.
On September 27, 1996, Santiago-Ramos' 89th day of
employment with Centennial, Mayberry told Rivera to dismiss her.
Rivera did so without providing Santiago-Ramos an explanation. The
events leading up to that decision are not entirely clear. For
instance, Bucks testified in his deposition that he, Rivera, and
Mayberry jointly discussed Santiago-Ramos' employment during the
preceding week and collectively agreed that her employment should
be terminated. Mayberry stated that he discussed firing Santiago-
Ramos and his rationale for doing so several times with Rivera.
However, Rivera recalls only one conversation, held the day
Mayberry told him to fire Santiago-Ramos. The record contains a
memorandum Rivera wrote dated September 27, 1996, stating that
Santiago-Ramos was dismissed and identifying four reasons for doing
so; however, Mejías, who typed the memorandum from Rivera's
dictation, testified in a deposition that the memorandum was not
prepared on September 27, and was only written after Santiago-Ramos
initiated legal proceedings against Centennial. It is clear,
however, that Santiago-Ramos' responsibilities were assumed by
other employees.
Santiago-Ramos filed this action and, after extensive
discovery, Centennial moved for summary judgment. Santiago-Ramos
-7-
moved for partial summary judgment on several of her Puerto Rico
law claims. The magistrate judge granted Centennial's motion for
summary judgment, denied Santiago-Ramos' motion for partial summary
judgment, refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Puerto Rico law claims, and entered judgment for Centennial.
II
The parties dispute whether the magistrate judge properly
applied the summary judgment standard. "We review summary judgment
de novo, viewing the entire record in the light most hospitable to
the party opposing summary judgment, indulging all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor." Dávila-Pérez, 202 F.3d at 466
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Summary judgment is
appropriate only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact" and "the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "A dispute is genuine if the
evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could
resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party. A fact is
material if it carries with it the potential to affect the outcome
of the suit under the applicable law." Sánchez v. Alvarado, 101
F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Once the
-8-
moving party has properly supported [its] motion for summary
judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, with respect to
each issue on which [it] has the burden of proof, to demonstrate
that a trier of fact reasonably could find in [its] favor."
DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997), citing
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-25. In opposing summary judgment, the
nonmoving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials
of [the] pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue" of material fact as to each issue upon
which he or she would bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986) (internal
quotations, citation, and alteration omitted).
We address one other issue before the merits. Santiago-
Ramos filed a sworn affidavit, in addition to documentary evidence
and transcripts of portions of depositions, in her opposition to
Centennial's motion for summary judgment. Santiago-Ramos cited her
affidavit frequently in her argument. Both Centennial and the
magistrate judge fault her for doing so, stating that the self-
serving statements, produced after her receipt of Centennial's
summary judgment motion, should be given less credibility than
other evidence in the record. Centennial cites Wright and Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 2722, 2738 (1998), for the
proposition that judges should afford less weight to affidavits
than to deposition testimony when deciding summary judgment
motions. Santiago-Ramos relies on Federal Rule of Civil
-9-
Procedure 56, which states that affidavits may be used in
supporting and opposing motions for summary judgment.
The law regarding this dispute is clear. To the extent
that affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment merely reiterate allegations made in the complaint,
without providing specific factual information made on the basis of
personal knowledge, they are insufficient. Roslindale Coop. Bank
v. Greenwald, 638 F.2d 258, 261 (1st Cir. 1981), citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(e). However, a "party's own affidavit, containing
relevant information of which he has first-hand knowledge, may be
self-serving, but it is nonetheless competent to support or defeat
summary judgment." Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 961 n.5 (1st
Cir. 1997), citing Nereida-González v. Tirado-Delgado, 990 F.2d
701, 706 (1st Cir. 1993). Santiago-Ramos' affidavit contains more
than the allegations made in her complaint: it provides specific
factual information based upon her personal knowledge. It may be
self-serving, but it complies with the requirements of the federal
rules, and we therefore must consider it together with the other
evidence before the magistrate judge.
III
The first issue is whether the magistrate judge erred in
granting summary judgment to Centennial on Santiago-Ramos' sex
discrimination claim. Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment
practice for an employer . . . to discharge any individual . . .
because of such individual's . . . sex." 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(a)(1). If the employer's decision is made "because of or
-10-
on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions," it is made "because of sex." Id. § 2000e(k). A
Title VII sex discrimination claim may be proven with direct
evidence of discrimination, such as "an admission by the employer
that it explicitly took actual or anticipated pregnancy into
account in reaching an employment decision." Smith v. Morse & Co.,
76 F.3d 413, 421 (1st Cir. 1996). Such "smoking gun" evidence is
rare, but sex discrimination may also be proven with circumstantial
evidence. Domínguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424,
428-29 (1st Cir. 2000).
When considering circumstantial evidence of sex
discrimination, we apply a three-stage, burden-shifting framework
that was first articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973), and further delineated in Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), and St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). The analysis "is
intended progressively to sharpen the inquiry into the elusive
factual question of intentional discrimination." Burdine, 450 U.S.
at 255 n.8.
1.
An employee alleging sex discrimination must first
establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) she belonged to
a protected class, (2) she performed her job satisfactorily,
(3) her employer took an adverse employment decision against her,
and (4) her employer continued to have her duties performed by a
comparably qualified person. Smith, 76 F.3d at 421. This task "is
-11-
not onerous," Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, and can result in a
rebuttable presumption "that the employer unlawfully discriminated
against the employee." Id. at 254.
Three elements of Santiago-Ramos' prima facie case are
clearly met: she is a woman; she was fired; and comparable persons
continued to perform her work responsibilities. Whether Santiago-
Ramos performed her job satisfactorily at Centennial is not as
clear. However, we need not reach this issue because of our second
inquiry.
2.
At the second stage, the burden shifts to the employer to
state a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 506-07. The employer's
burden is merely a burden of production; the employee maintains the
burden of proof throughout. Id. at 507. If the employer meets its
burden, the presumption of discrimination evaporates. Id.
Centennial advanced the following nondiscriminatory
reasons for firing Santiago-Ramos: (1) the missing phones
incident; (2) the communications towers demurrage charges; (3) the
unpaid electrical bills; (4) failure to complete the employee
manual; (5) her general attitude and lack of commitment. Santiago-
Ramos concedes that these reasons are sufficient to drop the
inference of discrimination that she contends arose from the first
step.
-12-
3.
At the third stage, with the initial presumption of
discrimination removed, it falls upon the employee to "present
sufficient evidence to show both that the employer's articulated
reason . . . is a pretext and that the true reason is
discriminatory." Thomas v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F.3d 38, 56 (1st
Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1174 (2000) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). "Plaintiffs may use the same
evidence to support both conclusions, provided that the evidence is
adequate to enable a rational factfinder reasonably to infer that
unlawful discrimination was a determinative factor in the adverse
employment action." Id. at 57 (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
We must decide "whether, viewing the aggregate package of
proof offered by [Santiago-Ramos] and taking all inferences in
[her] favor, [Santiago-Ramos] has raised a genuine issue of fact as
to whether the termination was motivated by [sex] discrimination."
Domínguez-Cruz, 202 F.3d at 431 (citations and quotations omitted).
If there is sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury
could infer that Centennial's proffered reasons for firing
Santiago-Ramos were pretextual and that it made its decision
because of discriminatory animus, summary judgment is
inappropriate. See id. We first address whether evidence of
pretext exists, having in mind that courts should exercise
particular caution before granting summary judgment for employers
-13-
on such issues as pretext, motive, and intent. Hodgens v. General
Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 167 (1st Cir. 1998).
Santiago-Ramos can establish that Centennial's stated
reasons for her dismissal are a pretext for discrimination in a
number of ways. One method is to show that discriminatory comments
were made by the key decisionmaker or those in a position to
influence the decisionmaker. Mulero-Rodríguez v. Ponte, Inc., 98
F.3d 670, 675-76 (1st Cir. 1996). There is evidence that Mayberry,
head of Puerto Rico operations for the parent company, was the key
decisionmaker in the termination of Santiago-Ramos' employment. It
is also clear that Rivera, Santiago-Ramos' direct supervisor and
general manager in Puerto Rico, was in a position to influence
Mayberry in that decision. Mayberry was located at the parent
company and Rivera was based in Puerto Rico. The two held "almost
daily conference calls" during the crucial start-up phase when
Santiago-Ramos worked at Centennial. Rivera testified that
Mayberry called him for his opinion regarding Santiago-Ramos'
dismissal. Bucks also testified that Rivera was involved in the
decision. This evidence is sufficient to support an inference that
Rivera was in a position to influence Mayberry, the key
decisionmaker.
The record reveals a number of comments made by both
Mayberry and Rivera suggesting their concern about Santiago-Ramos
possibly having a second child while working at Centennial, as well
as concern about women with children working at Centennial in
general. For purposes of summary judgment, we cannot weigh the
-14-
credibility of witnesses making these comments and must assume they
were made as stated. DeNovellis, 124 F.3d at 308, quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The magistrate judge reviewed
Mayberry's and Rivera's comments and held that they were "stray
remarks," insufficient to enable a jury to conclude that
Centennial's reasons for dismissing Santiago-Ramos were pretextual.
We do not read the record the same way.
For example, two weeks prior to Santiago-Ramos'
termination, she traveled to the parent company for training. At
that time, Mayberry had no intention of firing her, despite knowing
of her work problems. At a dinner held during the training,
Mayberry specifically asked Santiago-Ramos about her ability to
balance her current work and parental responsibilities. In
response to Santiago-Ramos' response that she was balancing her
duties well and that she would have another child, Mayberry
questioned Santiago-Ramos' ability to fulfill her work
responsibilities should she have a second child. The subject
matter of Mayberry's comments (Santiago-Ramos' ability to work as
a mother) coupled with Mayberry's previous impression of Santiago-
Ramos (he was not inclined to fire her), together with the timing
of Santiago-Ramos' dismissal (just two weeks after Mayberry made
the comments), provides circumstantial evidence about the
pretextual nature of Centennial's proffered nondiscriminatory
reasons for Santiago-Ramos' dismissal. Such comments, made by
Mayberry (the key decisionmaker), together with similar comments
from Rivera (one in a position to influence the decisionmaker),
-15-
could lead a jury to conclude that Centennial's proffered reasons
for firing Santiago-Ramos were actually a pretext for
discrimination.
Santiago-Ramos also points to comments made by others at
Centennial and the parent company that illustrate a discriminatory
attitude in the company as a whole. Typically, statements made by
"one who neither makes nor influences [a] challenged personnel
decision are not probative in an employment discrimination case."
Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 10 (1st Cir.
1990). However, evidence of a company's general atmosphere of
discrimination "may be considered along with any other evidence
bearing on motive in deciding whether a Title VII plaintiff has met
her burden of showing that the defendants' reasons are pretexts."
Sweeney v. Board of Trustees of Keene State College, 604 F.2d 106,
113 (1st Cir. 1979) (emphasis added). As recounted earlier, a
number of other persons at Centennial and the parent company made
comments to Santiago-Ramos and others concerning the company's
treatment of female employees with children. While these comments
are not proof of discrimination against Santiago-Ramos, they "add
'color' to the decision-making process at [Centennial] and to the
reasons given for [her dismissal]." Id. A jury could reasonably
rely upon these comments, together with other evidence such as
comments by the decisionmakers, in concluding that Centennial's
explanations are pretextual.
Another method of establishing pretext is to show that
Centennial's nondiscriminatory reasons were after-the-fact
-16-
justifications, provided subsequent to the beginning of legal
action. See Mariani Giron v. Acevedo Ruiz, 834 F.2d 238, 239 (1st
Cir. 1987) (section 1983 case); Lex K. Larson, 1 Employment
Discrimination § 8.04 at 8-76 (2d ed. 2000). A jury could
interpret from the timing of such comments that Centennial's
reasons are pretextual. On September 27, 1996, the date of
Santiago-Ramos' dismissal, Rivera did not tell her why her
employment was being terminated. A memorandum dated that same day
identifies several reasons for the decision. However, Mejías, who
typed that memorandum from Rivera's dictation, stated that it was
prepared several weeks subsequent to the termination, after it was
clear that Santiago-Ramos was initiating legal action against
Centennial. A jury could rely upon Mejías' statement to conclude
that Centennial's stated reasons for firing Santiago-Ramos were
merely pretextual post hoc justifications because they were only
provided in anticipation of litigation.
Santiago-Ramos can also establish pretext by showing
"weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or
contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons" such
that a factfinder could "infer that the employer did not act for
the asserted non-discriminatory reasons." Hodgens, 144 F.3d at 168
(internal quotations and citations omitted). A factfinder could do
so here. First, as the magistrate judge held, the evidence
regarding the demurrage charges Centennial incurred because of the
tardy receipt of the communications towers suggests that this
reason could be considered pretextual. There is evidence that
-17-
Santiago-Ramos was never assigned responsibility to pick up the
towers, that she was unaware that the towers had arrived in Puerto
Rico before she was dismissed, and that no one had reprimanded her
about the towers incident during her tenure with Centennial.
Second, Centennial cites the missing telephone incident as an
important reason for firing Santiago-Ramos, stating that the
telephones were crucial to its start-up operations. However, at
the time the incident occurred, Rivera told Santiago-Ramos that it
was "a minor matter." That the incident was minor to Rivera is
supported by his assertion that he had no intention to fire her
before being told to do so. Third, Centennial now stresses
Santiago-Ramos' failure to complete the employee manual as a reason
for her dismissal, although that problem did not appear in Rivera's
memorandum regarding Santiago-Ramos' dismissal. The record reveals
that Santiago-Ramos had ultimate oversight responsibility for the
completion of the manual and that before Santiago-Ramos' dismissal
Mayberry expressed concern that it was not completed. However,
there is also evidence, from both Santiago-Ramos and Lourdes Lucas,
the parent company's legal counsel, that Centennial's outside legal
counsel was asked to provide a first draft of the manual and that
revisions would have to be made to that draft. Santiago-Ramos
testified that outside counsel was tardy in providing the first
draft and that the revision process was underway when she was
fired. Based upon these weaknesses in the nondiscriminatory
reasons Centennial provided, the jury could find that the reasons
were pretextual.
-18-
Having discussed whether Centennial's nondiscriminatory
reasons were pretextual, we now address whether the record contains
sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus. Domínguez-Cruz, 202
F.3d at 431. There is sufficient evidence here. For instance,
after Santiago-Ramos told Mayberry that she was planning on having
a second child in the next several years, he specifically
questioned whether she would be able to manage her work and family
responsibilities; shortly thereafter, her employment was
terminated.
Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable
to Santiago-Ramos, Domínguez-Cruz, 202 F.3d at 433, we conclude
that there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury
could find that Centennial's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons
for her dismissal were pretextual and that the actual reason was
discriminatory. Our view of the facts at this point is necessarily
shaped by the summary judgment standard of review and is only "a
description of the permissible inferences that could be drawn from
the facts and that suffice to defeat summary judgment." Id.
Indeed, after the full presentation of the evidence at trial, a
factfinder might very well decide differently. But Santiago-Ramos
has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the actual reason
for her dismissal, and this suffices to allow her to present her
sex discrimination case at trial. We reverse the magistrate judge
on this issue.
-19-
IV
The next issue is whether the magistrate judge erred in
granting summary judgment to Centennial on Santiago-Ramos'
retaliation claim. Pursuant to Title VII:
It shall be an unlawful employment
practice for an employer to discriminate
against any of his employees . . . because
he has opposed any practice made an
unlawful employment practice by this
subchapter, or because he has made a
charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing
under this subchapter.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). A prima facie case of retaliation is made
by a showing that: (1) the employee engaged in conduct that
Title VII protects; (2) the employee suffered an adverse employment
action; and (3) the adverse action is causally connected to the
protected activity. Hernández-Torres v. Intercontinental Trading,
Inc., 158 F.3d 43, 47 (1st Cir. 1998).
Santiago-Ramos argues that she was fired because she
opposed the job fair profile Rivera presented, which allegedly
excluded older persons with commitments, pregnant women, and women
with children. There is evidence that Rivera proposed such a
policy and that Santiago-Ramos opposed it. However, there is also
evidence that Santiago-Ramos never reported her concerns to
Mayberry or anyone else at the parent company.
For a retaliation claim "to survive a motion for summary
judgment, the plaintiff must point to evidence in the record that
would permit a rational factfinder to conclude that the employment
-20-
action was retaliatory." King v. Town of Hanover, 116 F.3d 965,
968 (1st Cir. 1997). Even assuming that Santiago-Ramos established
the first two elements of the retaliation prima facie case, the
magistrate judge correctly granted summary judgment on this claim
because Santiago-Ramos has not established the third element: that
her dismissal was causally related to her opposition to the job
fair profile. The only evidence concerning Santiago-Ramos'
retaliation claim is that Rivera allegedly proposed a
discriminatory policy, Santiago-Ramos stated her opposition of the
policy to Rivera, and Santiago-Ramos was later fired. The parties
dispute whether Mayberry ever knew about Santiago-Ramos' opposition
to the policy; however, this dispute is immaterial to resolution of
the issue. Assuming Mayberry did know about her opposition,
Santiago-Ramos has pointed to no evidence, save the decisionmakers'
knowledge of Santiago-Ramos' opposition to the policy, suggesting
that her dismissal occurred in retaliation for her opposition. "It
is insufficient for [one] to simply recount that [one] complained
and . . . was disciplined . . . ." Id. Because there is no
evidence that Santiago-Ramos' dismissal occurred in retaliation for
her opposition to Rivera's job fair profile, we affirm summary
judgment for Centennial on Santiago-Ramos' retaliation claim. See
id.
V
The last issue is whether the magistrate judge erred in
denying Santiago-Ramos' motion for summary judgment on her Puerto
Rico Law 80 claims. Santiago-Ramos' motion argued that the
-21-
probationary contract she signed was void and, therefore, that she
was entitled to payment for 4.5 vacation days that she accumulated
before her employment was terminated. Centennial opposed Santiago-
Ramos' motion, arguing that it was filed after the date the
magistrate judge set for the filing of dispositive motions and,
alternatively, that the probationary contract was valid. The
magistrate judge denied Santiago-Ramos' motion.
We first turn to Centennial's argument that the
magistrate judge should not have entertained Santiago-Ramos' tardy
motion. We review case management decisions for abuse of
discretion, giving district courts wide latitude. Rosario-Díaz v.
González, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1998). A party adversely
affected by a district court's case management decision thus "bears
a formidable burden" in seeking reversal. United States v. One
1987 BMW 325, 985 F.2d 655, 657 (1st Cir. 1993).
In a pretrial conference, the magistrate judge set
January 15, 1998, as the deadline for dispositive motions.
Santiago-Ramos' motion for partial summary judgment, filed
March 17, 1998, was obviously late. However, despite its
tardiness, the magistrate judge chose to entertain the motion,
suggesting that the issues contained therein were related to issues
discussed in Santiago-Ramos' simultaneous and timely filed
opposition to Centennial's motion for summary judgment. Based upon
that fact, as well as the relatively straightforward issue
presented in the motion, we hold that the magistrate judge did not
abuse his discretion by entertaining the motion.
-22-
We thus examine the magistrate judge's summary judgment
decision on the merits. Puerto Rico Law 80 provides the exclusive
remedy under Puerto Rico law for an employee who is discharged
without demonstrating just cause. 29 L.P.R.A. §§ 185a-185m.
Pursuant to Law 80, dismissed at-will employees are entitled to
certain benefits, including payment for vacation time accrued and
not enjoyed due to work demands. Id. § 185a; Beauchamp v. Holsum
Bakers of P.R., Inc., 16 P.R. Offic. Trans. 641, 116 D.P.R. 522
(1985). However, an employee who is terminated during a
probationary contract period is not entitled to those benefits. 29
L.P.R.A. § 185h. A probationary contract must, among other things,
be "made in writing, stating the date on which said probationary
period commences and ends, which in no case shall exceed three (3)
months." Id. The term "month" is defined as "a period of thirty
(30) consecutive calendar days." Id. If the contract does not
"comply with the above conditions," a court must "render it null
and void." Id.
The probationary contract Santiago-Ramos signed stated it
was a 90-calendar day contract, commencing July 1, 1996, and ending
September 30, 1996. However, the period from July 1 to
September 30 is 92 days, not 90 days. Santiago-Ramos argues this
error makes the probationary contract void, inasmuch as it violates
the mandate in section 185h: a probationary contract never extends
more than 90 days. Centennial argues that the error should be
overlooked, inasmuch as the contract also states it was for 90
days. Alternatively, Centennial points out that the 90th day of
-23-
the probationary contract fell on a Saturday, and that continuing
the deadline through until Monday, September 30, 1996, would be
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), which allows
deadlines to be carried over past weekends and legal holidays.
Finally, Centennial argues that the parties intended to enter a
90-day probationary contract, and pursuant to 31 L.P.R.A. § 3471,
if the words of a contract "should appear contrary to the evident
intention of the contracting parties, the intention shall prevail."
The parties have not cited, and our research has not
uncovered, any Puerto Rico or federal case law interpreting the
90-day time limitation in section 185h. We must therefore do so
ourselves. We interpret a Puerto Rico statute according to its
plain meaning. A.M. Capen's Co. v. American Trading and Prod.
Corp., 202 F.3d 469, 473 (1st Cir. 2000).
The statute plainly states that a probationary contract
must specify "the date on which [it] commences and ends," and that
the stated period "in no case shall exceed three (3) months,"
meaning three periods of "thirty (30) consecutive calendar days."
29 L.P.R.A. § 185h. Section 185h contemplates probationary
contracts that are less than 90 days, but it is clear that no
probationary contract may extend longer than 90 days. Section 185h
is also straightforward that noncompliance with its requirements
"shall render [the contract] null and void." Id. Santiago-Ramos'
contract, while purporting to be a 90-day contract, clearly
included a time period of 92 days, making it invalid. Centennial
cites no authority for its argument that we can construe a contract
-24-
governed by Puerto Rico law with reference to the time deadline
provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, we
cannot ignore the plain language of the statute in order to give
meaning to the parties' contractual intent.
Because the contract states that it is a 90-day contract
and also that it extends for 92 days, the party's actual intent is
unclear. Centennial points to no other documentary or testimonial
evidence of the parties' actual intent in entering into this
contract. We are bound to apply the plain language of Puerto Rico
statutory law, which is strict in mandating that a probationary
contract that by its terms extends beyond 90 days be declared void.
We thus reverse the magistrate judge's denial of Santiago-Ramos'
motion for partial summary judgment.
Santiago-Ramos is entitled to costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
-25-