Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
-
Upload
scribd-government-docs -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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 non- di 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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-
-
7/26/2019 Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresi Hotels, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)
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-