Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2296

ADDI EL SOTO- FELI CI ANO,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

VI LLA COFRES HOTELS, I NC. AND SANDRA Y. CARO,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J uan M. Pr ez- Gi mnez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Li pez and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

J uan M. Fr ont er a- Suau, wi t h whomCar l os J . J i mnez- Tor r es andFront er a Suau Law Of f i ces, PSC, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

I sr ael Rol dn- Gonzl ez f or appel l ees.

Febr uar y 20, 2015


2/31

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Mor e t han a decade ago, Addi el

Sot o- Fel i ci ano began wor ki ng i n t he ki t chen at t he Vi l l a Cof r es

Hot el , a beachf r ont , f ami l y- r un est abl i shment i n Ri ncn, Puer t o

Ri co. By J anuary of 2010, Sot o had become t he hot el ' s head chef .

By Mar ch of t hat year , he had been f i r ed. Thi s appeal t ur ns on t he

event s t hat l ed t o t hat out come. Sot o al l eges t hat a r evi ew of t he

r ecor d r eveal s t hat he was f i r ed because of hi s age and i n

r et al i at i on f or hi s ef f or t s to asser t hi s r i ght s agai nst t hi s

al l eged di scr i mi nat i on. The Di st r i ct Cour t di sagr eed and gr ant ed

summar y j udgment f or t he def endant s. We r ever se.

I.

On November 4, 2010, Sot o f i l ed sui t i n f eder al cour t .

He named as def endant s t he Vi l l a Cof r es Hotel and Sandr a Caro, t he

hotel ' s gener al manager i n charge of human r esour ces. Soto al l eged

vi ol at i ons of t he f eder al Age Di scr i mi nat i on i n Empl oyment Act , 29

U. S. C. 621- 634, and Puer t o Ri co empl oyment l aw, P. R. Laws Ann.

t i t . 29, 146 ( ant i - di scr i mi nat i on) ; i d. 185 ( wr ongf ul

t er mi nat i on) . Sot o sought back pay, l ost benef i t s, compensat or y

damages, l i qui dated damages, at t orney' s f ees, and an order

di r ect i ng t he hot el t o r ei nst at e hi m and t o cease di scri mi nat i ng

agai nst hi m on account of age.

I n Sept ember of 2013, t he Di st r i ct Cour t gr ant ed summary

j udgment f or t he def endant s. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen di smi ssed

Sot o' s f eder al cl ai ms wi t h pr ej udi ce and hi s st at e- l aw cl ai ms

-2-


3/31

wi t hout pr ej udi ce. Soto now appeal s t hat j udgment . We di scuss t he

r el evant f act s i n connect i on wi t h our anal ysi s.

II.

We r evi ew t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s summary j udgment r ul i ng de

novo. Cr acchi ol o v. E. Fi sher i es, I nc. , 740 F. 3d 64, 69 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) . I n doi ng so, we "consi der [ ] t he r ecor d and al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences t her ef r omi n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he non- movi ng

par t [ y] . " Est at e of Hevi a v. Por t r i o Cor p. , 602 F. 3d 34, 40 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) . We may deci de i n f avor of t he movi ng par t y - - her e,

t he hot el and Sandr a Car o - - "onl y i f t he r ecor d r eveal s ' t hat

t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mater i al f act and t he movant

i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. ' " Aver y v. Hughes, 661

F. 3d 690, 693 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ) .

III.

We begi n wi t h Sot o' s age di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m under t he

f eder al Age Di scr i mi nat i on i n Empl oyment Act . See 29 U. S. C.

623( a) ( 1) . I n a case t hat r el i es onl y on i ndi r ect evi dence of

di scr i mi nat i on, as Sot o concedes t hi s one does, we f ol l ow t he

f ami l i ar t hr ee- st age f r amewor k set f or t h i n McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p.

v. Gr een, 411 U. S. 792 ( 1973) . We do so even t hough t he Supreme

Cour t "has not def i ni t i vel y deci ded whet her t he evi dent i ar y

f r amework of McDonnel l Dougl as Corp. v. Gr een, 411 U. S. 792 (1973) ,

ut i l i zed i n Ti t l e VI I cases i s appr opr i at e i n t he ADEA cont ext . "

Gr oss v. FBL Fi n. Ser vs. , I nc. , 557 U. S. 167, 175 n. 2 ( 2009) . And

-3-


4/31

t hat i s because our Ci r cui t "has l ong appl i ed t he McDonnel l Dougl as

f r amewor k t o ADEA cases. " Vl ez v. Thermo Ki ng de Puer t o Ri co,

I nc. , 585 F. 3d 441, 447 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

A.

The f i r st st age of t he i nqui r y concer ns whet her t he

pl ai nt i f f has made a pr i ma f aci e case of age di scr i mi nat i on. See

McDonnel l Dougl as, 411 U. S. at 802. The pl ai nt i f f ' s bur den at t hi s

st age i s "modest . " Rat hbun v. Aut ozone, I nc. , 361 F. 3d 62, 71 ( 1st

Ci r . 2004) . He need onl y make a pr i ma f aci e case, not a wi nni ng

one. To make t hat t hr eshol d showi ng, t he pl ai nt i f f must "show

t hat : 1) he was at l east 40 year s ol d at t he t i me he was f i r ed; 2)

he was qual i f i ed f or t he posi t i on he had hel d; 3) he was f i r ed, and

4) t he empl oyer subsequent l y f i l l ed t he posi t i on, demonst r at i ng a

cont i nui ng need f or t he pl ai nt i f f ' s ser vi ces. " Vl ez, 585 F. 3d at

447.

A pl ai nt i f f who meet s t he " l ow st andard of showi ng pr i ma

f aci e di scr i mi nat i on, " Zapat a- Mat os v. Recki t t & Col man, I nc. , 277

F. 3d 40, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , " i n ef f ect cr eat es a pr esumpt i on t hat

t he empl oyer unl awf ul l y di scr i mi nat ed agai nst t he empl oyee, " St .

Mar y' s Honor Ct r . v. Hi cks, 509 U. S. 502, 506 ( 1993) ( quot i ng Texas

Dep' t of Cmt y. Af f ai r s v. Bur di ne, 450 U. S. 248, 254 ( 1981) ) . I n

consequence of t hat pr esumpt i on, at t he second st age of t he

i nqui r y, t he bur den of pr oduct i on shi f t s t o t he empl oyer . To meet

t hat bur den, " t he empl oyer must ar t i cul at e a l egi t i mat e

-4-


5/31

nondi scr i mi nat ory reason" f or havi ng t aken t he adver se empl oyment

act i on. Zapata- Matos, 277 F. 3d at 44.

I f t he empl oyer of f er s such a r eason, t hen we move t o t he

t hi r d and f i nal st age of t he i nqui r y. At t hi s st age, t he pl ai nt i f f

must "pr ove by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hat t he l egi t i mate

r easons of f er ed by t he def endant wer e not i t s t r ue reasons, but

wer e a pr et ext f or di scr i mi nat i on. " Vl ez, 585 F. 3d at 447- 48

( quot i ng Reeves v. Sander son Pl umbi ng Prods. , I nc. , 530 U. S. 133,

143 ( 2000) ) . To def eat a mot i on f or summary j udgment , t hough, t he

pl ai nt i f f need onl y show t hat hi s abi l i t y t o meet t hat bur den t ur ns

on a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . See Bur di ne, 450 U. S. at 253

( di st i ngui shi ng bet ween "t he pl ai nt i f f ' s ul t i mat e and i nt er medi at e

bur dens, " r espect i vel y) ; Mesni ck v. Gen. El ec. Co. , 950 F. 2d 816,

824- 25 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) .

B.

We st ar t wi t h t he f i r st st age of t he i nqui r y. The

Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded Soto made a pr i ma f aci e case of age

di scr i mi nat i on t hat was st r ong enough t o shi f t t he bur den of

pr oduct i on t o t he def endant s. We agr ee.

Sot o was at l east f or t y year s of age at t he t i me of hi s

suspensi on and f i r i ng, whi ch occur r ed on March 2 and March 10,

2010, r espect i vel y. And t he r ecor d shows t hat , af t er f i r i ng Sot o,

t he hotel i mmedi atel y di vi ded hi s head- chef dut i es among J ess

Vargas ( who worked i n t he ki t chen) and Soto' s t wo pr evi ous di r ect

-5-


6/31

super vi sors, Hct or Pr ez- Vl ez ( t he r est aur ant and ki t chen

manager ) and Hct or Mndez ( t he f ood and bever age manager ) . The

r ecor d t hus suf f i ci ent l y suppor t s Sot o' s cont ent i on t hat , at t he

t i me of t he f i r i ng, t he hot el had a cont i nui ng need f or Sot o' s

f ormer dut i es. See Hi dal go v. Over seas Condado I ns. Agenci es,

I nc. , 120 F. 3d 328, 333- 34 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( pl ai nt i f f may

demonst r at e cont i nui ng need f or hi s ser vi ces wi t h evi dence showi ng

t hat pl ai nt i f f ' s j ob f unct i ons wer e absor bed by sever al empl oyees

of def endant ) ; Kal e v. Combi ned I ns. Co. of Am. , 861 F. 2d 746, 760

( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( same) .

The r ecor d al so pr ovi des suf f i ci ent suppor t f or Sot o' s

f ur t her cont ent i on t hat he was qual i f i ed f or hi s j ob. The r ecor d

shows t hat Soto became head chef af t er worki ng i n the hotel ' s

ki t chen f or a number of years. The r ecord t hen shows t hat Sot o

hel d hi s j ob as head chef f or at l east a number of mont hs. And,

f i nal l y, t he r ecor d shows t hat pr i or t o hi s suspensi on, Sot o had

never r ecei ved a f ormal wr i t t en compl ai nt f r om hotel management

about hi s per f ormance dur i ng hi s seven years of empl oyment at t he

hot el . I n l i ght of t he "l ow st andar d of showi ng pr i ma f aci e

di scr i mi nat i on, " Zapat a- Mat os, 277 F. 3d at 44, t hat evi dence

cl ear l y suf f i ces. See Mel ndez v. Aut oger mana, I nc. , 622 F. 3d 46,

50- 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; Vl ez, 585 F. 3d at 448.

The def endant s, however , cont end Sot o f ai l ed t o make a

pr i ma f aci e showi ng t hat he was qual i f i ed. Speci f i cal l y, t he

-6-


7/31

def endant s cont end t he r ecord shows t hat Soto used pr of ani t y t o

such an extent t hat i t gener at ed compl ai nt s f r om co- wor ker s and

possi bl y al so cust omer s; t hat he expr essed a bad at t i t ude towar d

hi s super vi sor s; t hat he was i nsubor di nat e t o manager s or

super vi sor s on at l east a handf ul of occasi ons; t hat he f r equent l y

ar r i ved l at e f or wor k; t hat he made at l east one t hr eat eni ng r emar k

t o a super vi sor ; and t hat he di sr espect ed a f el l ow st af f member ' s

r el i gi on. The def endant s ther ef or e cont end t hat Sot o f ai l ed t o

meet " t he empl oyer ' s l egi t i mate expect at i ons, " Mel ndez, 622 F. 3d

at 50, and t hus cannot show t hat he was qual i f i ed f or hi s j ob at

t he t i me of hi s f i r i ng, see i d.

But t he def endant s' chal l enge t o Sot o' s pr i ma f aci e

showi ng wi t h r espect t o whet her he was qual i f i ed cannot succeed.

As t he Di st r i ct Cour t observed, t he def endant s r el y on t he same

evi dence concerni ng Soto' s mi sconduct t o suppor t a f ur t her argument

- - namel y, t hat even i f Soto made t he r equi r ed pr i ma f aci e showi ng,

hi s suspensi on and f i r i ng had not hi ng t o do wi t h hi s age and

ever yt hi ng t o do wi t h hi s bad behavi or on t he j ob. Our pr ecedent s

make cl ear , however , t hat we may not cr edi t t he same evi dence t hat

an empl oyer put s f or t h t o show i t s l egi t i mat e, nondi scr i mi nat or y

r eason f or f i r i ng an empl oyee t o def eat t hat same empl oyee' s pr i ma

f aci e showi ng t hat he was qual i f i ed. "To do so woul d bypass t he

bur den- shi f t i ng anal ysi s and depr i ve t he pl ai nt i f f of t he

oppor t uni t y t o show t hat t he nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason was i n

-7-


8/31

act ual i t y a pr et ext desi gned t o mask di scr i mi nat i on. " Vl ez, 585

F. 3d at 448 ( quot i ng Wexl er v. Whi t e' s Fi ne Fur ni t ur e, I nc. , 317

F. 3d 564, 574 ( 6t h Ci r . 2003) ( en banc) ) .

We t hus concl ude t hat Sot o has put f or t h a suf f i ci ent

pr i ma f aci e case of age di scr i mi nat i on t o sur vi ve summary j udgment .

And so, we move on t he f i nal t wo st ages of t he i nqui r y.

C.

Sot o concedes t hat t he def endant s, i n r esponse t o hi s

pr i ma f aci e showi ng, have met t hei r bur den of ar t i cul at i ng a

nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason f or t he suspensi on and f i r i ng: Sot o' s

al l eged mi sconduct on t he j ob. Sot o t hus chal l enges onl y t he

def endant s' cont ent i on - - and t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s concl usi on - -

t hat no r at i onal j ur y coul d f i nd t hat t he def endant s' asser t ed

nondi scr i mi nat or y reason f or f i r i ng Sot o was mer el y a pr et ext f or

di scri mi nat i ng agai nst hi m f or bei ng t oo ol d.

I n eval uat i ng Sot o' s cont ent i on at t he summary j udgment

st age, t he cri t i cal quest i on i s "whet her or not t he pl ai nt i f f has

adduced mi ni mal l y suf f i ci ent evi dence t o per mi t a reasonabl e

f act f i nder t o concl ude t hat he was f i r ed because of hi s age. "

Vl ez, 585 F. 3d at 452 ( quot i ng Dvi l a v. Cor por aci n de P. R. Par a

La Di f usi n Pbl i ca, 498 F. 3d 9, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) . To make t hat

showi ng, a pl ai nt i f f must do more t han mer el y "i mpugn t he ver aci t y

of t he empl oyer ' s j ust i f i cat i on. " Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 824. A

pl ai nt i f f must "el uci dat e speci f i c f act s whi ch woul d enabl e a j ur y

-8-


9/31

t o f i nd t hat t he r eason gi ven i s not onl y a sham, but a sham

i nt ended t o cover up t he empl oyer ' s r eal mot i ve: age

di scr i mi nat i on. " I d. ( quot i ng Medi na- Munoz v. R. J . Reynol ds

Tobacco Co. , 896 F. 2d 5, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) .

On a mot i on f or summar y j udgment , however , we must

consi der t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e to the non- movi ng

par t y, whi ch i n t hi s case i s Sot o. See Por t r i o Cor p. , 602 F. 3d at

40. And we must keep i n mi nd t hat " wher e a pl ai nt i f f i n a

di scr i mi nat i on case makes out a pr i ma f aci e case" of age

di scr i mi nat i on, as Soto has done, "and the i ssue becomes whet her

t he empl oyer ' s st at ed nondi scr i mi nat or y reason i s a pr et ext f or

di scr i mi nat i on, cour t s must be ' par t i cul ar l y caut i ous' about

grant i ng t he empl oyer ' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment . " Hodgens v.

Gener al Dynami cs Corp. , 144 F. 3d 151, 167 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

Despi t e t hese admoni t i ons, t he Di st r i ct Cour t st i l l f ound

t hat Sot o had f ai l ed t o make a mi ni mal l y suf f i ci ent showi ng t hat

t he def endant s' cl ai med nondi scr i mi nat or y reason f or f i r i ng hi mwas

i n f act a pr et ext f or age di scri mi nat i on. And t hus t he Di st r i ct

Cour t r ef used t o put Sot o' s case t o t he j ur y. The Di st r i ct Cour t

r eached t hat concl usi on i n t wo st eps.

The Di st r i ct Cour t f i r st deter mi ned t hat t he r ecor d

cont ai ned onl y one pi ece of evi dence both t hat coul d be consi der ed

and t hat showed t hat age di scr i mi nat i on was t he def endant s' r eal

mot i ve f or f i r i ng Sot o. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen compar ed t hat

-9-


10/31

evi dence concer ni ng t he def endant s' di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve t o t he

compet i ng evi dence that t he def endant s had put f or t h r egardi ng

t hei r concer ns wi t h Sot o' s mi sconduct . And, f i nal l y, t he Di st r i ct

Cour t concl uded t hat t hi s evi dence of t he def endant s' concer n wi t h

Sot o' s mi sconduct overwhel med t he evi dence r egardi ng the

def endant s' di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve t o such an extent t hat t he

def endant s were ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment . We r evi ew each st ep

i n t he Di str i ct Cour t ' s anal ysi s.

1.

We st ar t wi t h t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s t r eat ment of Sot o' s

evi dence of di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve. I n assessi ng t hat evi dence, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t consi der ed onl y Sot o' s al l egat i ons r egar di ng

comment s by Sandra Car o, t he hot el ' s head of human r esour ces and a

member of t he Car o f ami l y, whi ch owned and operat ed t he hot el .

Accor di ng t o Sot o' s deposi t i on, Sandr a Caro comment ed

negat i vel y on Sot o' s age i n a meet i ng t hat she had wi t h hi m on

Febr uar y 18, 2010. Speci f i cal l y, Sandr a Car o t ol d Sot o: " I

under st and t hat you are ol d t o work at t he cooki ng l i ne and t hat

your co- wor ker s ar e al so sayi ng t hat you ar e ol d t o wor k at t he

cooki ng l i ne. " Sot o f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat Sandr a Car o sai d t o hi m

at t hat meet i ng: "You ar e no l onger capabl e t o wor k at t he l i ne

because you are ol d. I am goi ng t o br i ng i n a new chef . Maybe I

can l et you work onl y i n banquets. You need some l ong vacat i ons

-10-


11/31

because you are ol d and sl ow at t he l i ne. We at t he Hotel Vi l l a

Cof r es are movi ng up, not down. "

As t he Di st r i ct Cour t acknowl edged, however , Sot o al so

of f er ed evi dence of si mi l ar age- r el at ed comment s t hat anot her hot el

empl oyee had made. Sot o t est i f i ed t hat hi s di r ect ki t chen

super vi sor , Hct or Pr ez, made t hese age- r el ated r emarks

"cont i nual l y" dur i ng t he summer of 2009. Accor di ng t o Sot o, Pr ez,

t he hot el ' s r est aur ant and ki t chen manager , sai d t o Sot o t hr oughout

t hi s per i od: "Fool you ar e t oo ol d"; "[ f ] ool , you ar e t oo sl ow. "

And whi l e Pr ez, unl i ke Sandr a Caro, i s not a named def endant , he

was Sot o' s di r ect super vi sor i n t he hot el ki t chen. That makes hi s

r emar ks, l i ke her s, r el evant t o Sot o' s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m. See

Dom nguez- Cr uz v. Sut t l e Car i be, I nc. , 202 F. 3d 424, 433- 34 ( 1st

Ci r . 2000) ( conduct of a super vi sor may subst ant i at e pl ai nt i f f ' s

case at t hi r d McDonnel l Dougl as st age, even i f not named as a

def endant ) .

But t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ef used t o consi der Pr ez' s

r emarks because Soto' s compl ai nt di d not r ef er ence t hem. The

Di st r i ct Cour t based t hat deci si on on our pr i or st at ement t hat

"summar y j udgment i s not a pr ocedural second chance t o f l esh out

i nadequat e pl eadi ngs. " Fl emi ng v. Li ndWal dock & Co. , 922 F. 2d 20,

24 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . Fl emi ng, however , does not obl i ge a pl ai nt i f f

t o set f or t h i n t he compl ai nt ever y f act of r el evance t o an

ot her wi se pr oper l y pl ed cl ai m, l et al one ever y f act of r el evance t o

-11-


12/31

an as- yet - unf i l ed summar y j udgment mot i on t hat ai ms t o def eat t hat

same cl ai m. And, unl i ke t he pl ai nt i f f i n Fl emi ng, Sot o i s not

i nt r oduci ng a new t heor y of l i abi l i t y i n r ef er enci ng Pr ez' s

r emar ks. He i s mer el y augment i ng t he evi dent i ar y basi s f or t he

ver y same age di scr i mi nat i on cl ai mt hat he had al r eady suf f i ci ent l y

pl ed.

Thus, we must consi der bot h Sandr a Car o' s and Hct or

Pr ez' s r emar ks i n assessi ng the st r engt h of Sot o' s showi ng

r egar di ng t he def endant s' di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve. For as we have

expl ai ned bef ore, "evi dence of age- r el ated comment s coul d suppor t

an i nf er ence of pr et ext and di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. "

Dom nguez- Cr uz, 202 F. 3d at 433; see al so Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 824

( "comment s by deci si onmaker s whi ch deni gr at e t hose over f or t y" may

const i t ut e "ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat may be mi ned by a

pl ai nt i f f " i n age di scr i mi nat i on sui t s) .

Her e, t he age- r el at ed comment s at i ssue, i f cr edi t ed, ar e

especi al l y suppor t i ve of t he age di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m. Sot o i s not

r el yi ng on age- r el ated comment s t hat put down those over f or t y

years of age i n gener al . Nor i s he r el yi ng on age- r el ated comment s

t hat ar e at best ambi guous as t o whet her t hey ref l ect an i nt ent t o

t ar get t he st at ut or i l y pr ot ect ed cl ass. Cf . Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at

171- 72 ( not i ng t hat empl oyer ' s r emar ks about empl oyee' s " absences"

were not cl ear l y ai med at absences pr ot ect ed by t he Fami l y Medi cal

-12-


13/31

Leave Act , as t he maj or i t y of t he empl oyee' s absences wer e not so

protected).

Soto i s i nst ead r el yi ng on age- r el ated comment s t hat wer e

di r ect ed at hi mi n par t i cul ar and t hat asser t ed t hat he was t oo ol d

t o cont i nue t o do hi s j ob. And, Sot o cont ends, t hose comment s came

not si mpl y f r om f el l ow empl oyees but f r om Sandr a Car o, " t he key

deci si onmaker r egardi ng hi s t er mi nat i on, " Dom nguez- Cr uz, 202 F. 3d

at 433, and Hctor Pr ez, "t he pl ai nt i f f ' s di r ect super vi sor , " i d.

Mor eover , Sot o al l eges t hat Sandr a Car o made her age-

r el at ed r emar ks i n a cont ext t hat shoul d gi ve r i se t o par t i cul ar

concer n. Sot o contends she made t hese comment s whi l e speaki ng wi t h

hi m about hi s j ob per f or mance, and t hat she di d so i mmedi at el y

bef or e she st at ed t hat she was t hi nki ng of hi r i ng a new chef i n hi s

st ead.

And, f i nal l y, Soto was suspended l ess t han t wo weeks

l at er , maki ng t he al l egedl y di scr i mi nat or y r emar ks t empor al l y

proxi mat e t o, r at her t han r emot e f r om, t he adver se empl oyment

act i on. Such t empor al pr oxi mi t y, we have hel d, i t sel f pr ovi des

suppor t f or t he i nf er ence t hat a di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve expl ai ns t he

subsequent suspensi on and f i r i ng. Cf . DeCai r e v. Mukasey, 530 F. 3d

1, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) , as cor r ect ed ( J ul y 10, 2008) ( " [ T] empor al

pr oxi mi t y al one can suf f i ce t o ' meet t he r el at i vel y l i ght bur den of

est abl i shi ng a pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on. ' " ( quot i ng

-13-


14/31

Mar i ani Col n v. Dep' t of Homel and Sec. ex r el . Cher t of f , 511 F. 3d

216, 224 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) ) .

Thus, no gr eat i nf er ent i al l eap woul d be necessar y f or a

j ur y t o f i nd f r omt hese comments t hat t he def endant s f i r ed Sot o due

t o hi s age, at l east i f t hese comment s wer e consi der ed on t hei r

own. See Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at 171 ( "St at ement s by super vi sor s

car r yi ng t he i nf er ence t hat t he super vi sor harbor ed ani mus agai nst

pr ot ect ed cl asses of peopl e or conduct ar e cl ear l y pr obat i ve of

pr et ext . " ) . Wi t h such evi dence of di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve i n t he

r ecor d, a rat i onal j ur y woul d not have t o rel y on a "t enuous

i nsi nuat i on" t o f i nd t hat t he empl oyer ' s asser t ed r eason f or f i r i ng

Sot o "was act ual l y a pr et ext f or age di scr i mi nat i on. " Mesni ck, 950

F. 2d at 826 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Thi s case, t her ef or e, i s not

one i n whi ch t he "vast maj or i t y of [ pl ai nt i f f ' s] evi dence r el at ed

t o pr et ext . . . [ but ] had not hi ng at al l t o do wi t h age or wi t h

t he empl oyer ' s t r ue mot i ves. " I d.

Ther e r emai ns, t hough, t he i ssue whether , despi t e t hi s

evi dence of di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve, t he def endant s' showi ng

r egar di ng Sot o' s al l eged mi sconduct - - and t he r ol e t hat Sot o' s

mi sconduct pl ayed i n t he deci si on t o f i r e hi m- - st i l l ent i t l es t he

def endant s t o summary j udgment . The Di st r i ct Cour t r eached t hat

ver y concl usi on. The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat t he evi dence t hat

t he def endant s f i r ed Sot o f or hi s mi sconduct was so st r ong t hat i t

over whel med any i nf er ence of di scr i mi nat ory mot i ve t hat t he r ecord

-14-


15/31

mi ght ot her wi se per mi t a j ur y t o dr aw. But Sot o ar gues t hat t he

evi dence on whi ch t he Di st r i ct Cour t r el i ed i n t hi s r egar d i s not ,

i n f act , t hat s t r ong. And so, we now t ur n t o what t he r ecord shows

on t hat poi nt .

2.

To chal l enge t he def endant s' cont ent i on t hat Sot o' s

mi sconduct mot i vat ed t he adver se empl oyment act i on, Sot o r el i es

chi ef l y on what t he r ecor d does not show. But t o underst and why

t he hol es Sot o hi ghl i ght s i n t he def endant s' account mi ght mat t er ,

we f i r st need t o l ay out t he case f or t he def endant s' cont ent i on

t hat t he deci si on t o f i r e Sot o had not hi ng t o do wi t h hi s age and

i nst ead r esul t ed ent i r el y f r om hi s mi sconduct . We wi l l t hen be i n

a posi t i on t o eval uat e Sot o' s cont ent i on t hat t he recor d r eveal s

pot ent i al l y si gni f i cant gaps and i nconsi st enci es i n t he def endant s'

pr oof on t hat poi nt - - gaps and i nconsi st enci es, Sot o cont ends,

t hat woul d per mi t a r at i onal j ur y t o f i nd t hat t he def endant s'

cl ai med mi sconduct - based r eason f or f i r i ng hi m i s i n f act a

pretext.

To make t he case t hat mi sconduct dr ove t he deci si on t o

di smi ss Sot o, t he def endant s cont end t hat Sot o had been ver bal l y

warned about hi s l oud use of pr of ani t y i n the ki t chen on a number

of occasi ons pr i or t o hi s suspensi on and f i r i ng. The def endant s

al so say Soto had been admoni shed ver bal l y f or bei ng l at e t o work.

Agai nst t hat backgr ound, t he def endant s t hen cl ai mSoto engaged i n

-15-


16/31

t he f ol l owi ng st r i ng of bad behavi or i n t he days i mmedi at el y

l eadi ng up t o hi s suspensi on on Mar ch 2, 2010, and hi s f i r i ng days

l at er .

The f i r st event occur r ed on Febr uary 17, 2010, Ash

Wednesday. Sot o al l egedl y made a di sr espect f ul r emar k on t hat day

t o a Cat hol i c wai t er who had asked not t o be gi ven meat i n

accor dance wi t h hi s f ai t h. The next day, Sandr a Caro met wi t h Soto

about hi s const ant use of pr of ani t y i n t he ki t chen. At t hat

meet i ng, Sandr a Caro al so r ai sed her concern about Soto' s r emark t o

t he wai t er , who had compl ai ned about t hat r emark t o hi s super vi sor .

Sandr a Car o t ol d Soto i n t he cour se of t hei r di scussi on t hat he was

"sl ow" and was t aki ng l onger t o pr epare meal s and t hat she want ed

t o know what t he pr obl em was. The def endant s say Sot o r esponded

t hat wor ki ng i n t he ki t chen coul d be st r essf ul , and t hat t he heat

and t he vol ume of wor k coul d get t o be t oo much.

The def endant s next al l ege t hat , on Febr uary 23, Sandr a

Caro r equest ed t o speak wi t h Sot o. The def endant s cl ai m, however ,

t hat Sot o responded by t el l i ng her over t he phone that he had

not hi ng t o say t o her . The def endant s next asser t t hat af t er

Hct or Pr ez asked Sot o to pr epare some f i sh on Febr uary 26, Sot o

r esponded by sayi ng that Pr ez, who was Sot o' s di r ect super vi sor ,

shoul d peel t he f i sh hi msel f . And, f i nal l y, t he def endant s cl ai m

t hat Sot o made a t hr eat eni ng r emark t o t hat same supervi sor on

Febr uar y 27. Speci f i cal l y, t he def endant s al l ege t hat Sot o t ol d

-16-


17/31

Pr ez t o be car ef ul wi t h what t he Car o si bl i ngs t ol d hi m t o do or

say, and added t hat " [ y] ou are a Chr i st i an man, and when somethi ng

expl odes, you t oo coul d get di r t y. "

Thi s sequence of event s cul mi nat ed i n a Mar ch 2, 2010,

l et t er t hat t he hot el sent t o Sot o. That l et t er i nf or med Sot o of

hi s suspensi on. I n gi vi ng t he r easons f or t he suspensi on, t he

l et t er expr essl y r ef er enced Sot o' s mi sconduct , i ncl udi ng t he t wo

i nci dent s of al l eged i nsubor di nat i on ( t el l i ng Sandr a Car o he had

not hi ng t o say t o her and t el l i ng Hct or Pr ez t o peel t he f i sh

hi msel f ) and t he one supposedl y t hr eateni ng r emark ( t o Pr ez) . The

hot el t hen not i f i ed Sot o of hi s t er mi nat i on ei ght days l at er . At

no t i me was Sot o' s age r ef er enced as a r eason f or ei t her deci si on.

Nor , t he Di st r i ct Cour t not ed, di d Sot o asser t t hat age

di scr i mi nat i on was t he t r ue r eason f or t he suspensi on when he

r ecei ved t he Mar ch 2 l et t er and r esponded t o i t i n wr i t i ng.

I n f i ndi ng t hi s evi dence st r ongl y suppor t i ve of t he

def endant s' case f or summary j udgment on t he pr et ext i ssue, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t emphasi zed t hat Sot o does not deny ei t her t hat he

had been ver bal l y admoni shed f or poor behavi or i n t he past or t hat

t he speci f i c i nci dent s ci t ed i n t he Mar ch 2 l et t er occur r ed. The

Di st r i ct Cour t di d acknowl edge Sot o' s cont ent i on t hat t he Mar ch 2

l et t er mi sconst r ued t he exchanges bet ween hi m and Sandr a Caro and

Hct or Pr ez, r espect i vel y. Sot o cont ended t hat t he l et t er t ook

t hese exchanges out of cont ext . But t he Di st r i ct Cour t nonet hel ess

-17-


18/31

concl uded t hat Sot o f ai l ed t o pr ovi de any basi s f or f i ndi ng t hat

t he def endant s di d not bel i eve t hose i nci dent s wer e ser i ous enough

t o war r ant hi s suspensi on and f i r i ng. And, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

r ul ed, i t was t he def endant s' bel i ef t hat mat t er ed, not Sot o' s vi ew

of how j ust i f i ed t hose bel i ef s mi ght have been.

Sot o r esponds as f ol l ows. He cont ends t hat i f hi s

conduct wer e t r ul y such a sour ce of concer n as t o pl ace hi s

cont i nued empl oyment i n j eopar dy, t hen concerns about t hese

i nci dent s woul d have been pr oper l y rai sed pr i or t o March 2, when

t he suspensi on l et t er f i r st r ef er enced t hem. And yet , Sot o ar gues,

t he r ecor d shows t hese i nci dent s wer e not r ai sed unt i l t hat l et t er .

Sot o t hus cont ends t hat t he def endant s' asser t ed reason f or

di smi ssi ng hi m, t hough nondi scr i mi nat or y, i s not i n f act t he t r ue

expl anat i on f or hi s suspensi on and f i r i ng and was asser t ed onl y as

a cover .

We f i nd t hat t he gaps i n t he def endant s' account t hat

Sot o i dent i f i es r ai se a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act concer ni ng

pr et ext . For exampl e, t he r ecord shows t hat compl ai nt s about

Soto' s conduct wer e never document ed i n wr i t i ng or pl aced i n Soto' s

per sonnel f i l e. And t hat was the case even t hough t he Di st r i ct

Cour t f ound t hat i t was hot el pol i cy t o f ol l ow t hat cour se f or

l odgi ng such compl ai nt s. The r ecor d f ur t her i ndi cat es t hat , wi t h

r espect t o compl ai nt s about Sot o, t he hot el di d not f ol l ow i t s

acknowl edged pol i cy of "pr ogr essi ve di sci pl i ne, " i n whi ch ver bal

-18-


19/31

warni ngs ar e f ol l owed by wr i t t en ones. I nst ead, Soto was suspended

f or t wo i nci dent s of al l eged i nsubor di nat i on and one al l eged t hr eat

wi t hout f i r st havi ng been war ned about t hose i nst ances at al l .

Of cour se, t hese l ast t hr ee i nci dent s di d occur i n t he

days j ust pr i or t o Sot o' s suspensi on. And t hat t i mi ng may of f er an

expl anat i on f or t he hot el ' s f ai l ur e t o document t hemf or mal l y. But

Sot o poi nt s out t hat t he compl ai nt s about hi s al l eged

i nsubor di nat i on and t hr eat eni ng comment were al so not ment i oned

dur i ng t he meet i ng he had wi t h hot el management on Februar y 28,

2010, even though t hat meet i ng post - dates t hese i nci dent s, and even

t hough Sot o used t he meet i ng t o rai se hi s concer ns t hat t he hotel

was di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst hi m because of hi s age.

That meet i ng was at t ended by al l of t he hot el ' s seni or

st af f , i ncl udi ng al l f our Car o si bl i ngs ( who t oget her owned and

oper at ed t he hot el ) . Sot o t est i f i ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he

expl ai ned t o those assembl ed t hat , days ear l i er , on Febr uar y 18,

Sandr a Car o had cal l ed hi m "ol d" and "sl ow" and t hat he f el t

di scr i mi nat ed agai nst . Sot o al so t est i f i ed t hat he had sai d t he

same t hi ng i n a di scussi on wi t h Fernando Caro ( t he general manager

i n char ge of f i nance) on Febr uar y 20. And, f i nal l y, Sot o t est i f i ed

t hat , at t hat same Febr uary 28 meet i ng wi t h t he Caro f ami l y, he

i nf ormed t he gr oup t hat he had vi si t ed t he Depar t ment of Labor

concerni ng hi s empl oyment at t he hot el ( t hough he does not asser t

whet her he t ol d t he gr oup t hat , whi l e t her e, he vi si t ed t he Ant i -

-19-


20/31

Di scr i mi nat i on Uni t , whi ch handl es age- di scr i mi nat i on compl ai nt s) .

Sot o poi nt s out , however , t hat even t hough he had j ust di r ect l y

conf r ont ed t hose at t he meet i ng wi t h hi s concer ns t hat he was bei ng

di scr i mi nated agai nst because of hi s age, t hose pr esent made no

r ef er ence dur i ng t he meet i ng t o t he l at er - asser t ed,

nondi scr i mi nat or y gr ounds f or hi s di smi ssal .

On thi s r ecor d, we bel i eve Sot o has shown i nconsi st enci es

i n t he def endant s' case suf f i ci ent t o suppor t an i nf er ence of

pr et ext . See Gmez- Gonzl ez v. Rur al Oppor t uni t i es, I nc. , 626 F. 3d

654, 662- 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( "Pret ext can be shown by such

weaknesses, i mpl ausi bi l i t i es, i nconsi st enci es, i ncoher enci es, or

cont r adi ct i ons i n t he empl oyer ' s pr of f er ed l egi t i mat e r easons f or

i t s act i on t hat a r easonabl e f act f i nder coul d r at i onal l y f i nd t hem

unwor t hy of cr edence and hence i nf er t hat t he empl oyer di d not act

f or t he asser t ed nondi scr i mi nat or y r easons. " ( quot i ng Mor gan v.

Hi l t i , I nc. , 108 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( 10t h Ci r . 1997) ) ) . I n cont ext ,

t he hot el ' s f ai l ur e t o r ai se t he i nci dent s of al l eged mi sconduct

ei t her t hr ough t he est abl i shed di sci pl i nar y pr ocesses or at t he

meet i ng on Febr uar y 28 per mi t s a j ur y t o doubt t he l i kel i hood t hat

t he ci t ed i nci dent s t r ul y wer e t he basi s f or t he deci si on t o

suspend and f i r e Soto. And t hat i nf er ence i s made more pl ausi bl e

by Sot o' s t est i mony t hat t he rel evant deci si on maker had l ess t han

t wo weeks ear l i er t ol d Sot o t hat he was t oo ol d f or hi s j ob, t hat

she had hear d as much f r om Sot o' s co- worker s, and t hat she was

-20-


21/31

consi der i ng get t i ng a new chef t o r epl ace hi m. Fur t her , t he gaps

i n t he def endant s' account t hat Sot o i dent i f i es must be consi der ed

agai nst t he addi t i onal t est i mony Sot o gave t hat hi s di r ect

super vi sor i n t he ki t chen, Hct or Pr ez, had made si mi l ar l y

di scr i mi nat ory comment s r epeat edl y mont hs bef ore.

3.

Gi ven t he evi dence i n t he recor d, Sot o' s def ense agai nst

t he mot i on f or summar y j udgment does not " r est [ ] merel y upon

concl usor y al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed

specul at i on. " Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at 167 ( quot i ng Smi t h v. St r at us

Comput er , I nc. , 40 F. 3d 11, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) . I nst ead, Sot o has

set f or t h a pl ausi bl e compet i ng account of t he pr oper i nf er ence t o

dr aw about what t r anspi r ed i n t he l ast t wo weeks of Febr uary 2010.

Whet her Sot o' s mi sconduct mot i vated t he ul t i mat e empl oyment

deci si on ( as t he def endant s asser t ) , or whet her t hat mi sconduct

t ook on si gni f i cance onl y af t er t he deci si on t o t er mi nat e Sot o on

t he basi s of age had been made ( as Sot o cont ends) , i s not a

quest i on f or us t o deci de at t hi s st age of t he case. A r at i onal

j ur y coul d dr aw ei t her i nf er ence, r egardl ess of whi ch may be t he

st r onger of t he t wo. But we may not suppl ant t he j ur y' s r ol e by

wei ghi ng t he st r engt h of t hose compet i ng i nf er ences f or our sel ves.

See Mul er oRodr guez v. Pont e, I nc. , 98 F. 3d 670, 677 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) ( r eversi ng grant of summar y j udgment and not i ng t hat

"det er mi nat i ons of mot i ve and i nt ent , par t i cul ar l y i n

-21-


22/31

di scr i mi nat i on cases, ar e quest i ons bet t er sui t ed f or t he j ur y"

( quot i ng Pet i t t i v. New Engl and Tel . & Tel . Co. , 909 F. 2d 28, 34

( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) ) . We t her ef or e r ever se t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

deci si on gr ant i ng summary j udgment on Soto' s age di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai m.

IV.

Soto al so cl ai ms t hat t he def endant s suspended and f i r ed

hi m i n r et al i at i on f or hi s ef f or t s t o r edr ess the al l eged age

di scr i mi nat i on. That cl ai m, t oo, st at es a cause of act i on under

t he Age Di scr i mi nat i on i n Empl oyment Act . See 29 U. S. C. 623( a) ,

( d) . Because Sot o' s case f or r et al i at i on, l i ke hi s one f or

di scr i mi nat i on, r est s on i ndi r ect evi dence of t he def endant s'

i mpermi ss i bl e mot i ve, we f ol l ow t he same f r amework t hat we used t o

assess Sot o' s age di scri mi nat i on cl ai m, "al bei t wi t h sl i ght

modi f i cat i ons" t o account f or t he r et al i at i on cl ai m' s di st i nct

f ocus. Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 827.

A.

Under t hi s modi f i ed f r amewor k, t he f i r st st age of t he

i nqui r y r equi r es t he pl ai nt i f f t o "make a pr i ma f aci e showi ng t hat

( i ) he engaged i n ADEA- pr ot ect ed conduct , ( i i ) he was t her eaf t er

subj ect ed to an adver se empl oyment act i on, and ( i i i ) a causal

connect i on exi st ed between t he pr ot ect ed conduct and t he adver se

act i on. " I d. I n t he r et al i at i on cont ext , too, the pl ai nt i f f ' s

-22-


23/31

bur den at t hi s i ni t i al st age i s a l eni ent one. See Gar ayal de- Ri j os

v. Muni ci pal i t y of Car ol i na, 747 F. 3d 15, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

I f t he pl ai nt i f f makes a pr i ma f aci e showi ng of

i mper mi ssi bl e r et al i at i on, t hen, at t he second st age, as i n t he

di scr i mi nat i on cont ext , t he bur den of pr oduct i on shi f t s t o t he

def endant . To meet t hat bur den, t he def endant must of f er a

l egi t i mat e, non- r et al i at or y r eason f or t he adver se empl oyment

act i on. Muoz v. Soci edad Espaol a de Auxi l i o Mut uo y

Benef i ci enci a de Puer t o Ri co, 671 F. 3d 49, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

And i f t he def endant does of f er such a reason, t hen t he

i nqui r y moves to t he t hi r d and f i nal st age. At t hi s st age, "t he

pl ai nt i f f must assume t he f ur t her bur den of showi ng t hat t he

pr of f er ed r eason i s a pr et ext cal cul at ed t o mask r et al i at i on. "

Har r i ngt on v. Aggr egat e I ndus. - Ne. Regi on, I nc. , 668 F. 3d 25, 31

( 1st Ci r . 2012) . To def eat summar y j udgment , however , a pl ai nt i f f

need not prove r et al i at i on by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence. A

pl ai nt i f f bear s onl y t he l i ght er bur den of showi ng t hat a genui ne

i ssue of mat er i al f act exi st s about whet her r et al i at i on was t he

t r ue mot i ve f or t he adver se empl oyment act i on i n quest i on. See

Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 828.

B.

We begi n wi t h Sot o' s pr i ma f aci e showi ng of r et al i at i on

- - and, i n par t i cul ar , wi t h t he evi dence t hat he put s f or t h t hat he

engaged i n conduct t hat t he ADEA pr ot ect s f r om r et al i at or y

-23-


24/31

measur es. Sot o r el i es on evi dence t hat he engaged i n t wo t ypes of

pr ot ect ed conduct : i nf ormal compl ai nt s t o hi s empl oyer about t he

age di scr i mi nat i on he cl ai med t o suf f er and more f ormal ( t hough

i ncompl et e) st eps t o r edr ess such di scr i mi nat i on.

Sot o poi nt s i n t hi s r egar d t o hi s t est i mony t hat , on

Febr uary 20, 2010, he appr oached Fer nando Caro ( t he hot el ' s general

manager i n char ge of f i nance) t o di scuss t he di scr i mi nator y remar ks

t hat Sot o cont ends Sandr a Caro made t o hi m i n t hei r meet i ng two

days bef ore. Soto cl ai ms he t ol d Fer nando Caro t hat Sandr a Caro

had sai d Sot o was " [ t oo] ol d t o wor k at t he l i ne" i n t he ki t chen

and t hat he consi der ed her comment s t o be di scr i mi natory. Soto

al so cl ai med he asked Fer nando Caro f or a meet i ng wi t h hot el

management t o di scuss t hese comment s.

Next , Sot o poi nt s t o t he f act t hat he went t o t he Puer t o

Ri co Depar t ment of Labor f i ve days af t er hi s Febr uar y 20 di scussi on

wi t h Fer nando Car o. Dur i ng t hi s Febr uar y 25 vi si t , mor eover , Sot o

went t o t he Depar t ment ' s Ant i - Di scr i mi nat i on Uni t i n addi t i on t o

anot her of f i ce, t hough he di d not f i l e any gr i evance wi t h t he

Depar t ment .

Fi nal l y, Sot o poi nt s t o t he comment s he made at t he

Febr uar y 28 meet i ng wi t h t he hot el ' s management t eam. Sot o

t est i f i ed t hat , dur i ng t hat meet i ng, he nar r at ed what had been sai d

i n hi s Febr uar y 18 si t - down wi t h Sandr a Car o. He al so t est i f i ed

t hat he expl ai ned t o t he whol e gr oup t hat he f el t di scr i mi nat ed

-24-


25/31

agai nst on t he basi s of her comment s. And, l ast l y, he t est i f i ed

t hat he t ol d at l east one of t he member s of t he Caro f ami l y t hat he

had vi si t ed t he Depar t ment of Labor ear l i er t hat week.

Sot o thus cont ends t hat , t hr ough t he evi dence of hi s

compl ai nt s t o hotel management and hi s vi si t t o t he Ant i -

Di scr i mi nat i on Uni t at t he Depar t ment of Labor , he has made a pr i ma

f aci e showi ng t hat he engaged i n pr ot ect ed conduct . And we agr ee.

See Pomal es v. Cel ul ar es Tel ef ni ca, I nc. , 447 F. 3d 79, 84 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) ( i nf ormal compl ai nt t o management may const i t ut e

pr ot ect ed conduct ) ; Her nandez- Tor r es v. I nt er cont i nent al Tr adi ng,

I nc. , 158 F. 3d 43, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( assumi ng that i nf or mal

compl ai nt t o i nt er nal per sonnel depar t ment may const i t ut e pr ot ect ed

conduct ) ; see al so Sumner v. U. S. Post al Ser v. , 899 F. 2d 203, 209

( 2d Ci r . 1990) ( accept abl e f or ms of pr ot ect ed act i vi t y under Ti t l e

VI I ' s anal ogous cl ause i ncl ude not onl y f or mal char ges of

di scri mi nat i on, but al so "i nf or mal pr ot est s of di scri mi nat or y

empl oyment pr act i ces, i ncl udi ng maki ng compl ai nt s t o management " ) .

Wi t h r espect t o Sot o' s pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on,

t hat l eaves onl y whet her Soto demonst r at ed a causal connect i on

bet ween hi s pr ot ect ed conduct and t he adver se empl oyment act i on

t hat f ol l owed. See Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 827. The def endant s

cont end Sot o has not made t hat showi ng, and t he Di st r i ct Cour t

agr eed. But r ather t han addr ess t he def endant s' argument s on t hi s

poi nt i n connect i on wi t h t he pr i ma f aci e case, wher e Sot o' s bur den

-25-


26/31

i s l owest , see Gar ayal de- Ri j os, 747 F. 3d at 24, we move di r ect l y t o

see whet her Sot o has r ai sed a genui ne i ssue of mater i al f act t hat

t he def endant s' st at ed gr ounds f or f i r i ng hi m wer e i n f act a

pr et ext f or r et al i at or y ani mus. I f he has met t hi s showi ng, t hen

he necessar i l y has met t he l esser bur den t hat he bears at t he pr i ma

f aci e st age of showi ng a causal connect i on bet ween hi s pr ot ect ed

conduct and t he deci si on t o f i r e hi m. See Wel l s v. Col or ado Dep' t

of Tr ansp. , 325 F. 3d 1205, 1218 ( 10t h Ci r . 2003) ( not i ng t hat , f or

r et al i at i on cl ai ms, t hi r d el ement of pr i ma f aci e case and t hi r d

McDonnel l Dougl as st age ar e "not easi l y di st i ngui shabl e" ( quot i ng

Far r el l v. Pl ant er s Li f esaver s Co. , 206 F. 3d 271, 286 ( 3r d Ci r .

2000) ) ) .

C.

Soto does not di sput e t hat t he def endant s have

ar t i cul at ed a l egi t i mat e, non- r et al i at or y r eason f or hi s suspensi on

and t er mi nat i on. The r eason i s t he same one t hat t he def endant s

gave i n r esponse t o Soto' s pr i ma f aci e showi ng of age

di scr i mi nat i on: t hat Sot o was i nsubor di nat e, made a t hr eat eni ng

r emark t o anot her empl oyee, and that hi s conduct was i n ot her

r espect s i nappr opr i ate. And so the i ssue comes down, once agai n,

t o pr et ext and t he t r ue mot i vat i on f or Sot o' s suspensi on and

f i r i ng. See Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 827 ( "As i n t he di scr i mi nat i on

cont ext proper , cour t s conf r ont ed by summar y j udgment mot i ons must

at t hi s [ f i nal st age] f ocus on t he ul t i mat e quest i on": whet her "t he

-26-


27/31

empl oyer ' s pr of f er ed r eason i s a pr et ext maski ng r et al i at i on f or

t he empl oyee' s opposi t i on t o a pr act i ce cast i nt o doubt by t he

ADEA. " ) .

We have al r eady descr i bed, i n connect i on wi t h our

eval uat i on of Sot o' s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, cer t ai n gaps and

i nconsi st enci es i n t he evi dence t he def endant s put f or t h r egar di ng

t hei r concer n about Soto' s mi sconduct . We see no r eason t o r each

a di f f er ent concl usi on about t he pot ent i al weaknesses i n t hat same

evi dence now t hat we ar e eval uat i ng Sot o' s ret al i at i on cl ai m. We

t hus need not r epeat our r easons f or concl udi ng t hat t he

i ncongr ui t i es i n t he def endant s' account of t hei r mi sconduct - based

r easons f or f i r i ng Sot o coul d gi ve r i se t o an i nf er ence of pr et ext .

That sai d, as wi t h t he cl ai mof age di scr i mi nat i on, Sot o

must show more t han t hat t he def endant s' asser t ed reason f or t aki ng

adver se act i on agai nst hi m was not t he r eal r eason. He must show

t hat t he r eason gi ven was a cover f or r et al i at i on, as i t i s

r et al i at i on t hat t he ADEA f or bi ds. See i d. Mi ndf ul t hat Sot o may

make t he r equi r ed showi ng ci r cumst ant i al l y, i d. at 828, we l ook to

see i f Sot o has r ai sed a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act about

whet her t he def endant s' cl ai m t hat t hey f i r ed Sot o f or hi s bad

behavi or was mer el y a cover f or t hei r r et al i at i on agai nst hi s

ef f or t s t o r edr ess t hei r di scr i mi nat i on.

The Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed t hat Sot o di d not put f or t h

enough evi dence. The Di st r i ct Cour t f ound t hat Sot o had of f er ed

-27-


28/31

not hi ng r egar di ng t he def endant s' r et al i at or y mot i ve beyond t he

f act t hat he had engaged i n pr otect ed conduct soon bef ore t he

def endant s suspended and ul t i mat el y f i r ed hi m. The Di st r i ct Cour t

t hen not ed t hat whi l e such t emporal pr oxi mi t y may suppor t an

i nf er ence of r et al i at i on, a coi nci dence of t i mi ng does not

aut omat i cal l y do so. And, f ur t her , t he Di st r i ct Cour t concl uded,

such a t i mi ng- based i nf erence woul d be unr easonabl e here because of

t he subst ant i al evi dence showi ng t hat t he def endant s had a

l egi t i mat e r eason t o f i r e Sot o that was compl et el y unr el at ed t o t he

st eps Sot o had t aken t o r edr ess t he al l eged age di scr i mi nat i on.

I n our vi ew, however , Sot o' s evi dence of r et al i at or y

mot i ve, whi l e not as st r ong as hi s evi dence of di scr i mi nat or y

mot i ve, r est s on mor e t han t empor al pr oxi mi t y al one. Sot o poi nt s

out t hat he di r ect l y i nf ormed hotel management of hi s concer ns

about age di scr i mi nat i on on a number of occasi ons i n t he days pr i or

t o hi s suspensi on. And t hus Soto argues not onl y t hat t her e was a

t emporal connect i on bet ween hi s i ndependent act i ons t o pr otect hi s

r i ght s and t he suspensi on and f i r i ng t hat f ol l owed, but al so that

t he def endants knew t hat he had t aken such st eps and were concer ned

t hat he had done so.

Speci f i cal l y, Sot o poi nt s t o t he evi dence concer ni ng hi s

conver sat i on wi t h Fer nando Caro on Febr uary 20, i n whi ch he rai sed

hi s concer ns about age di scr i mi nat i on, and hi s meet i ng wi t h a

number of member s of t he Car o f ami l y on Febr uar y 28, i n whi ch he

-28-


29/31

r ai sed t hose concer ns agai n. Wi t h r espect t o t he vi si t t o t he

Depar t ment of Labor on Febr uary 25, Soto notes ( and t he Di st r i ct

Cour t acknowl edged) t hat he i nf ormed Lui s Lpez ( a f el l ow co-

worker ) and Evel yn Caro ( t he hotel ' s human r esour ce super vi sor )

t hat he had gone t o the Depar t ment of Labor " t o seek or i ent at i on

about hi s r i ght s as an empl oyee. " I n addi t i on, Sot o t est i f i ed t hat

he i nf or med Ri t a Car o, who si gned the Mar ch 2 l et t er i nf or mi ng hi m

of hi s suspensi on, t hat he had gone to t he Depar t ment " t o ask f or

counsel i ng. "

Mor eover , Sot o not es t hat t he recor d cont ai ns evi dence

showi ng t hat Ri t a Caro ( who was i n char ge of cust omer ser vi ces at

t he hotel and was one of co- si gner s of t he March 2 suspensi on

l et t er ) had speci f i cal l y asked Sot o why he had vi si t ed t he

Depar t ment of Labor . And Sot o emphasi zes t hat Ri t a Caro asked hi m

t hat quest i on onl y days bef or e i nf or mi ng hi m of hi s suspensi on f or

al l egedl y non- age- r el at ed r easons.

Tr ue, Sot o was at best equi vocal about whether he t ol d

anyone i n hot el management t hat he had gone t o t he Ant i -

Di scr i mi nat i on Uni t dur i ng hi s vi si t t o the Depar t ment of Labor .

But t he recor d cer t ai nl y per mi t s t he i nf er ence t hat t he def endant s

- - who suspended Sot o j ust t wo days af t er he i nf ormed t hose

assembl ed of hi s vi si t - - bel i eved Soto had gone t o t he Depar t ment

t o addr ess hi s by t hen wel l - known concer ns about t he hotel ' s age

di scri mi nat i on.

-29-


30/31

I n t hi s r egar d, Sot o' s cont ent i on t hat t he hot el manager

who si gned t he March 2 suspensi on l et t er had i nqui r ed about Soto' s

vi si t t o t he Depar t ment of Labor t akes on par t i cul ar si gni f i cance.

For on Soto' s account , i t i s no mer e coi nci dence t hat she made t hat

i nqui r y at a t i me when she knew Soto was concer ned about age

di scr i mi nat i on - - and j ust days bef or e she t ook act i on t o sever

Sot o' s t i es t o t he hot el i n a l et t er t hat was car ef ul t o set f or t h

mi sconduct as t he basi s f or hi s suspensi on. I nst ead, on Sot o' s

vi ew, t hat i nqui r y i s r ef l ect i ve of t he hot el management ' s concer n

wi t h hi s ef f or t s t o t ake act i on agai nst t he hot el ' s al l eged

di scri mi nat i on.

We t hus f i nd t hat t he r ecor d gi ves r i se t o compet i ng

pl ausi bl e i nf er ences f r om whi ch a r at i onal j ur y coul d f i nd f or

Sot o. Accor di ng t o Sot o, t he def endant s' t r ue concer ns about hi s

cont i nued empl oyment were not based on t he i nci dent s i nvol vi ng hi s

al l eged mi sconduct - - none of whi ch was f ormal l y document ed or even

r ai sed di r ect l y wi t h Sot o i n accor d wi t h t he hot el ' s r ecogni zed

di sci pl i nar y pr ocess - - but r at her wer e based on hi s i ncr easi ngl y

asser t i ve ef f or t s t o addr ess t he hot el ' s di scri mi nat i on. And, f or

t hat r eason, we must r everse t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s summary j udgment

or der on Sot o' s r et al i at i on cl ai m.

V.

Af t er gr ant i ng summary j udgment f or t he def endant s on

bot h t he f eder al age di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms, t he

-30-


31/31

Di st r i ct Cour t di smi ssed wi t hout pr ej udi ce al l of Sot o' s Puer t o

Ri co l aw cl ai ms. Because we concl ude t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n

gr ant i ng summar y j udgment on t he f ederal cl ai ms, we vacat e t he

di smi ssal of t he pendent st ate l aw cl ai ms and r emand t hem f or

f ur t her consi der at i on.

VI.

I n concl udi ng t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t gave i nsuf f i ci ent

consi der at i on t o Sot o' s si de of t he st or y, we do not mean t o

suggest t hat a di scr i mi nat or y or r et al i at or y mot i ve i n f act

under l ay t he def endant s' deci si on t o suspend and t hen f i r e Sot o.

We hol d onl y t hat t her e i s a t r i abl e i ssue of f act as t o whet her

t he def endant s' st at ed gr ounds f or t aki ng adver se empl oyment

act i ons agai nst Sot o wer e i n f act a pr et ext f or t he di scr i mi nat i on

and r et al i at i on t he ADEA bar s. The Di st r i ct Cour t ' s j udgment i s

t her ef ore vacated. We r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs. No cost s

ar e awar ded.

-31-

Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)