Rodriguez-Cordero et al v. Centro de Salud de Lares, Inc., No. 3:2011cv02258 - Document 41 (D.P.R. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Centro de Salud de Lares, Inc. Plaintiffs' federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs' Commonwealth law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Judgment to be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 8/7/2013.(mrj)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 MAGDALENA RODRà GUEZ-CORDERO, et. al., Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) Plaintiffs, v. CENTRO DE SALUD DE LARES, INC., et. al., Defendants. 5 6 7 8 OPINION AND ORDER We must decide whether a medical doctor's claims against her former employer constitute sex and pregnancy discrimination. I. Factual and Procedural History 9 10 11 12 Because we must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party 13 when considering a summary judgment motion, to the extent that any facts are disputed, the 14 facts set forth below represent Plaintiffs version of the events at issue. Matsushita Elec. 15 Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 16 Magdalena Rodríguez-Cordero worked as a general medicine doctor for Centro de 17 Salud, Inc., a nonprofit healthcare provider. Rodríguez-Cordero also provides professional 18 medical services through a private office she maintains in Utuado, Puerto Rico. When 19 Centro de Salud hired Rodríguez-Cordero, she signed a contract that included a non-compete 20 clause, which specified that she was not to provide any medical services or engage in any 21 professional activity that would intervene or compete with Centro de Salud s service Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) -2- 1 operations in Lares and Quebradillas, Puerto Rico. On October 28, 2010 three days prior 2 to the expiration of her work contract Rodríguez-Cordero met with Centro de Salud s 3 Human Resources Office to discuss the renewal of her appointment. She was pregnant at the 4 time. 5 prohibiting her from developing professional activities that competed with the services and 6 purpose of the center, directly or indirectly, in institutions, offices, medical practices, 7 develop professional activities that compete with the services and purposes of the center. 8 (Docket No. 26-1 at 3.) Rodríguez-Cordero told Human Resources personnel that the clause 9 concerned her, but they told her that the new clause was added at the behest of the 10 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico s Health Resources and Services Administration. Rodríguez- 11 Cordero did not sign the contract. All of the physicians that were newly contracted or had to 12 renew their contracts on or after November 1, 2010, were presented with and signed 13 contracts containing the same non-complete clause. (Id. at 4.) Rodríguez-Cordero now 14 argues that the real reason for the inclusion of the new non-compete clause was gender- 15 based discrimination on the basis of her pregnancy. The employment contract she received contained a new non-compete clause, 16 After timely filing a notice to sue with the EEOC, Rodríguez-Cordero, and her 17 husband, José Oscar Ramos-Rodríguez, filed a complaint in federal district court on 18 December 27, 2011. (Docket No. 1.) On September 4, 2012, Centro de Salud moved for 19 summary judgment. (Docket No. 13.) Rodríguez-Cordero opposed. (Docket No. 19.) On 20 November 30, 2012, Centro de Salud replied. (Docket No. 26.) For the following reasons, 21 we grant Centro de Salud s motion for summary judgment. Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) -3II. 1 2 3 4 5 The defendants are entitled to summary judgment on a claim if they can show that 6 there is no genuine dispute over the material facts underlying the claim. Celotex Corp. v. 7 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). We must decide whether a reasonable juror could find for 8 plaintiffs on each of their claims when all reasonable inferences from the evidence are drawn 9 in their favor. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Legal Standard III. 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants argue that Rodríguez-Cordero failed to establish a prima-facie case of 15 discrimination because she did not suffer an adverse employment action and because there 16 is no evidence that other similarly situated employees outside of her protected class were 17 treated more favorably. (Docket No. 13-1 at 6.) We agree. Discussion 18 First, Rodríguez-Cordero did not suffer an adverse employment action because 19 Defendants did not terminate her employment; she simply chose not to renew her contract. 20 Although she complains about the inclusion of a certain clause in her new contract, (Docket 21 No. 19-1 at 3), she cannot escape the fact that the defendants offered her a contract, which 22 she declined. An employee s refusal to contract does not constitute an adverse employment 23 action. Shelley v. Trafalgar H. Pub. Ltd. Co., 973 F. Supp. 84, 89 (D.P.R. 1997) ( The 24 freedom not to contract should be protected with the same zeal as the freedom to contract. ); 25 Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n, 110 F.3d 318, 26 333 (6th Cir. 1997) ( It is still hornbook law that the freedom of contract entails the freedom 27 not to contract, except in the case of innkeepers, common carriers, and certain other public Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) -4- 1 service companies, and except as restricted by antitrust, antidiscrimination, and other 2 statutes. ). 3 Second, Rodríguez-Cordero failed to establish that her employers treated non- 4 pregnant employees more favorably than they treated her. All of the physicians who were 5 either hired or had to renew their professional services contracts by November 2010 were 6 asked to sign contracts containing the same non-compete clause that Rodríguez-Cordero 7 found objectionable. (Docket No. 13-2 at 12.) Some of these other doctors were males. 8 (Id.) To allege disparate treatment successfully, Rodríguez-Cordero must show that others 9 similarly situated to [her] in all relevant respects were treated differently by the employer. 10 Rosado v. Radio Shack, Inc., 312 F.3d 532, 534 (1st Cir. 2002). Rodríguez-Cordero cannot 11 meet this standard. 12 Rodríguez-Cordero argues that there are many male doctors at Centro de Salud who 13 signed contracts containing non-compete clauses and Centro de Salud has not enforced the 14 non-compete penalties against them. (Docket No. 19 at 9.) Assuming that this is true, she 15 offers no evidence to indicate that Centro de Salud would have enforced the clause against 16 her either. Rather, her argument essentially concedes that some male and, indeed, some 17 female doctors received the same terms she did when renewing their contracts: They chose 18 to renew and she did not. 19 Finally, Rodríguez-Cordero alleges violations of rights afforded by the Puerto Rico 20 Civil Code. (Docket No. 1 at 10-11.) Specifically, Rodríguez-Cordero alleges violations of 21 Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. 22 Cordero s claims under Article 1802 are time barred and ask that we dismiss the claim with 23 prejudice. (Docket No. 13-1 at 20-1.) (Id.) Defendants argue that Rodríguez- Civil No. 11-2258 (JAF) -5- 1 We have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 2 Commonwealth law claims since we have dismissed all of the claims over which we have 3 original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 4 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) ( if the federal law claims are dismissed before trial ¦the state 5 claims should be dismissed as well). In exercising our discretion under § 1367(c), we must 6 consider the issues of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. 7 Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority, 342 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2003). Having considered 8 these factors, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 9 Commonwealth law claims. Therefore, we dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs remaining 10 Che v. Commonwealth law claims. IV. 11 12 13 14 15 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants summary judgment motion is GRANTED. 16 (Docket No. 13.) Plaintiffs federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 17 Plaintiffs Commonwealth law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Conclusion 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 7th day of August, 2013. 20 21 22 S/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE 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.