Mercado-Echevarria v. Department of Corrections et al, No. 3:2007cv02134 - Document 101 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 31 MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Juan Eliza and UGT; GRANTING IN PART 53 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings; DENYING AS MOOT 91 Supplemental Motion re: 84 MOTION for Reconsideration, 88 MOTION for Reconsideration re 81 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 84 MOTION for Reconsideration, AND 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment. We DISMISS all claims against Defendants Juan Eliza and Union General de Trabajadores. We also DISMISS Plaintiffs&# 039; Law 100 claims. Remaining are Plaintiffs' Title VII claims against the Department of Corrections and Plaintiffs' Law 17, Law 69, and Article 1802 claims. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 8/10/09.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO JULIA MERCADO-ECHEVARRà A, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) v. PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER 13 Plaintiffs, Julia Mercado-Echevarría ( Mercado ) and her minor 14 child Linnette Oramas-Mercado, bring this action against Defendants, 15 the Puerto Rico Department of Corrections (the DOC ); DOC Secretary 16 Miguel A. Pereira-Castillo, DOC sub-Secretary Rafael Santiago-Torres, 17 and DOC employees Fernando Fernández-Correa, Ana González, Hilda 18 Santos, and Ivette Bodón-González (collectively the individual DOC 19 Defendants ); and Unión General de Trabajadores and its president, 20 Juan Eliza (collectively UGT ), for violations of Title VII of the 21 Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( Title VII ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e- 22 17, the National Labor Relations Act ( NLRA ), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-69, 23 and Puerto Rico laws No. 17, of April 22, 1988 ( Law 17 ), 29 24 L.P.R.A. §§ 155-155k (2001 & Supp. 2007), No. 69, of July 6, 1985 25 ( Law 69 ), 29 L.P.R.A. §§ 1321-41 (2001), No. 100, of June 30, 1959 Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) -2- 1 ( Law 100 ), 29 L.P.R.A. §§ 146-51 (2001 & Supp. 2007), and Article 2 1802, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5141. Docket Nos. 1, 24.) 3 UGT moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 31), and Plaintiffs oppose (Docket No. 38). 5 Plaintiffs and UGT have also submitted briefs in compliance with our 6 May 5, 2009, Order (Docket No. 41). (Docket Nos. 42, 59, 65.)1 7 The DOC and the individual DOC Defendants move for judgment on 8 the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). 9 (Docket No. 53.) Plaintiffs oppose (Docket No. 78); UGT has filed a 10 reply (Docket No. 83).2 We address each motion in turn. 11 I. 12 UGT s Motion to Dismiss 13 Plaintiffs seek relief under the NLRA and Puerto Rico law for 14 UGT s alleged breach of the duty of fair representation and breach of 15 the collective bargaining agreement ( CBA ). (Docket Nos. 24, 38.) 16 Defendants argue that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over these 17 claims inasmuch as Law No. 45 of February 25, 1998 ( Law 45 ), 3 18 L.P.R.A. §§ 1451-54a (2006), applies and requires that the claims be 19 submitted to arbitration. (Docket Nos. 31, 42.) 1 UGT styles its brief as a motion for summary judgment. (See Docket No. 42.) 2 As we grant UGT s motion to dismiss, we do not consider UGT s reply (Docket No. 83). Accordingly, Plaintiffs associated motions for reconsideration (Docket Nos. 84, 88, 91) are moot. Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) -3- 1 Under Rule 12(b)(1), a defendant may move to dismiss an action 2 against him for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 4 of demonstrating its existence. See Skwira v. United States, 344 F.3d 5 64, 71 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 6 522 (1st Cir. 1995)). 7 The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden Rule 12(b)(1) is a large umbrella, overspreading a variety of 8 different types of challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction. 9 Valentin v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 362-63 (1st Cir. 2001). 10 A movant may base a challenge to the sufficiency of the plaintiff s 11 assertion of subject matter jurisdiction solely on the pleadings. 12 Id. at 363. In that case, we take the plaintiff s jurisdictionally- 13 significant facts as true and assess whether the plaintiff has 14 propounded an adequate basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 15 363; see Pejepscot Indus. Park, Inc. v. Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 215 16 F.3d 195, 197 (1st Cir. 2000). Alternatively, when the jurisdictional 17 facts are distinct from the case's merits, a moving party can bring 18 a "factual challenge, in which case the court addresses "the merits 19 of the jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between 20 the parties. Valentin, 254 F.3d at 362-63. 21 Order (Docket No. 41), the NLRA is inapplicable to Plaintiffs claims 22 because it excludes public employers and employees from its coverage. 23 See 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), (3); Best v. Rome, 858 F. Supp. 271, 275 n.5 24 (D. Mass. 1994). As Mercado is an employee of the DOC (see Docket As we noted in our prior Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) -4- 1 No. 24), Puerto Rico law applies to Plaintiffs claims relating to 2 the CBA.3 Law 45 governs labor relations for public employees in 3 Puerto Rico. 3 L.P.R.A § 1451. Law 45 requires CBAs to include 4 procedures for dispute resolution, including arbitration, and states 5 that where a controversy arises from a CBA, [t]he parties shall have 6 the obligation to engage in arbitration before the Public Sector 7 Labor Relations Commission ( PSLRC ). 3 L.P.R.A § 1452(b), (c). The 8 CBA presently at issue provides a grievance procedure, which requires 9 a complainant to first submit complaints internally, and then to 10 arbitration before the PSLRC. (Docket No. 42-4.) The CBA specifies 11 that 12 established 13 controversies arising from a CBA shall be settled through the 14 mechanism 15 Plaintiffs have not pointed to, nor have we found, any exception to 16 these requirements. Plaintiffs claims against UGT arise from its 17 alleged failure to represent her pursuant to the CBA and breach of 18 the same (see Docket No. 24); we lack jurisdiction over these claims 19 because both Law 45 and the CBA require that they be submitted to 20 arbitration before the PSLRC. See 3 L.P.R.A § 1452; (Docket No. 42- 21 4). [a]ll 3 grievances therein. established shall (Id.) in the be resolved Similarly, [CBA]. using Law 3 45 the procedure requires L.P.R.A. § that 1452(a). Plaintiffs argue once again in their brief that the NLRA should not preempt Puerto Rico law in this case and, thus, that Puerto Rico law applies to their claims. (Docket No. 59.) We agree. Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) -5- 1 UGT further argues that we should dismiss Plaintiffs Title VII 2 claims against it. (Docket No. 31.) Plaintiffs clarify in their 3 opposition that they did not intend to bring claims against UGT under 4 Title VII. (See Docket No. 38.) We, therefore, dismiss these claims. 5 Finally, we ordered Plaintiffs to address whether we should also 6 dismiss any related labor claims arising under the CBA against the 7 DOC defendants. (Docket No. 41.) Plaintiffs brief clarifies that 8 they did not intend to bring claims under the CBA against the DOC 9 defendants. 10 (See Docket No. 59; see also Docket No. 24.) We, therefore, dismiss those claims. 11 II. 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 13 The DOC and the individual DOC Defendants move for judgment on 14 the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). (Docket No. 53.) Because the 15 DOC Defendants filed the motion before filing their answer to the 16 amended complaint (Docket No. 97), we treat it as a motion to dismiss 17 for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 18 R. Civ. P. 12(c) with Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The distinction, 19 however, is largely academic, as the same standard applies under 20 either rule. See, e.g., Pérez-Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano, 520 F.3d 26, 21 29 (1st Cir. 2008). Compare Fed. 22 A defendant may move to dismiss an action against him, based 23 solely on the complaint, for the plaintiff s failure to state a 24 claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) -6- 1 In assessing this motion, we accept[] all well-pleaded facts as 2 true, 3 [plaintiff]. 4 971 (1st Cir. 1993). Mere legal conclusions, however, are not 5 entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. __, 6 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). and we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 F.2d 962, 7 The DOC first argues that Plaintiffs Title VII claim against it 8 must be dismissed because it is entitled to sovereign immunity from 9 suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 10 (Docket No. 53.) Under the Eleventh Amendment, an unconsenting State 11 is immune from federal-court suits brought by its own citizens as 12 well as by citizens of another State. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 13 651, 663 (1974). However, Congress may abrogate the states sovereign 14 immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts 15 pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Bd. of Trs. 16 of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001) (quoting 17 Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73 (2000)). Courts have 18 consistently held that Congress has abrogated states sovereign 19 immunity to claims brought under Title VII. See, e.g., Okruhlik v. 20 Univ. of Ark., 255 F.3d 615, 623-27 (8th Cir. 2001); Varner v. Ill. 21 State Univ., 150 F.3d 706, 718 (7th Cir. 1998), vacated on other 22 grounds 23 Emmanuelli, 553 F. Supp. 2d 75, 82 (D.P.R. 2008); Sánchez Ramos v. 24 P.R. Police Dep t, 392 F. Supp. 2d 167, 178-79 (D.P.R. 2005); see by 528 U.S. 1110 (2000); Torres-Santiago v. Alcaraz- Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) -7- 1 also Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 451-54 (1976); Espinal- 2 Domínguez v. Puerto Rico, 352 F.3d 490, 494-95 (1st Cir. 2003). The 3 DOC has provided us no reason to depart from the reasoning in these 4 decisions. We find that the DOC is, therefore, not entitled to 5 sovereign immunity from Plaintiffs Title VII claim. 6 The DOC also argues that Plaintiffs Law 100 claims must be 7 dismissed because the statute does not apply to government entities. 8 (Docket 9 discriminatory employment action based on sex. 29 L.P.R.A. § 146. 10 Law 100 does not apply to government employers; it protects only 11 employees in the private sector and employees of government entities 12 that operate as private businesses. 13 Cruz v. Padilla Ayala, 125 D.P.R. 486, 508 (1990); see also Marín- 14 Piazza v. Aponte-Roque, 873 F.2d 432, 436 (1st Cir. 1989). Because 15 the DOC is a government agency and does not function as a business or 16 private entity, Law 100 does not apply to it. Arce-Rey v. Pereira, 17 Civ. No. 06-1798, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11672, at *8-9 (D.P.R. Feb. 18 15, 2008) (citing 4 L.P.R.A. § 1101 et seq.). Accordingly, we dismiss 19 Plaintiffs Law 100 claim. No. 53.) Law 100 prohibits employers from taking 29 L.P.R.A. § 151(3); Rodríguez 20 The individual DOC Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Title VII 21 claims against them must be dismissed because there is no individual 22 liability under the statute. (Docket No. 53.) Plaintiffs agree that 23 this is the case and state that they did not intend to bring Title Civil No. 07-2134 (JAF) -8- 1 VII claims against the individual DOC defendants. (Docket No. 78.) 2 We, therefore, dismiss these claims. 3 Finally, the individual DOC Defendants argue that we should 4 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims 5 against them under Puerto Rico law. (Docket No. 53.) However, because 6 a federal claim remains, we retain Plaintiffs claims under Puerto 7 Rico law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 8 III. 9 Conclusion 10 For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT UGT s motion to dismiss 11 (Docket No. 31) and DISMISS all claims against Defendants Juan Eliza 12 and Unión General de Trabajadores. We DENY UGT s motion for summary 13 judgment (Docket No. 42) as MOOT. We GRANT the DOC Defendants motion 14 to dismiss (Docket No. 53) IN PART and DISMISS Plaintiffs Law 100 15 claims. Remaining are Plaintiffs Title VII claims against the 16 Department of Corrections and Plaintiffs Law 17, Law 69, and Article 17 1802 claims. In addition, we DENY Plaintiffs pending motions for 18 reconsideration (Docket Nos. 84, 88, 91) as MOOT. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10th day of August, 2009. 21 22 23 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.