Torres Ramos v. METRO GUARD SERVICE, INC.

Citations: 394 F. Supp. 2d 465; 2005 WL 1639438Docket: Civ. 04-2162(JP)

Court: District Court, D. Puerto Rico; July 12, 2005; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs Melissa Torres Ramos and Julian Rivera filed a discrimination lawsuit against Metro Guard Service, Inc. and several co-Defendants, alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various Puerto Rico laws. Torres claims gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, including hostile work environment allegations against her supervisor, Amparo Mercado. The individual co-Defendants are sued in both their official and personal capacities under several Puerto Rican statutes addressing discrimination and workplace rights. The Court received multiple motions to dismiss from the co-Defendants and the Plaintiffs' oppositions to these motions. Ultimately, the Court granted the motions to dismiss for co-Defendants Olmo, Figueroa, Mercado, and Nieves and partially granted the motion to dismiss from Metro Guard Services, Inc. The Court emphasized the legal standard for dismissal, stating that a complaint should not be dismissed if relief could potentially be granted under any proven facts consistent with the allegations.

Plaintiff Torres commenced employment with Defendant MGS as a non-exempt security guard on February 20, 2002. After notifying MGS of her pregnancy in May 2002, she was subsequently dismissed. Following the filing of a grievance with the Department of Labor, Torres was reinstated at a reduced salary, which she claims was retaliatory. Upon her return, her supervisor, co-Defendant Amparo Mercado, allegedly created a hostile work environment through persistent sexual harassment, including inappropriate comments and unwanted physical contact. Torres reported these incidents to co-Defendant Rafael Figueroa, who dismissed her concerns as a personnel issue and failed to escalate the matter to Human Resources. 

After leaving for maternity leave on February 8, 2003, and giving birth on February 10, she returned to find ongoing harassment from Mercado. MGS allegedly did not provide a suitable place for her to pump breast milk, forcing her to do so in the guardhouse under Mercado's watchful eye, who made inappropriate remarks about her breastfeeding. Torres sought an injunction from the Caguas Superior Court for a proper pumping location, leading to further retaliation from her employers, including discrimination against her religion and isolation from her male colleagues. Despite her complaints about sexual harassment, no corrective actions were taken, and the harassment persisted, with Mercado making lewd comments as late as July 26, 2003.

In their motions to dismiss, co-Defendants Olmo, Figueroa, Mercado, and Nieves contended that individual liability under Title VII is not recognized in the First Circuit and the District of Puerto Rico, suggesting that Torres's claims against them should be dismissed on this basis.

The Court concurs with the individual co-Defendants regarding the lack of established individual liability under Title VII, as neither the First Circuit Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. The Court references multiple cases, including Vizcarrondo and Serapión, noting that the First Circuit has not resolved this issue and has opted not to address it. A majority of other circuits have concluded that individual liability does not exist under Title VII, and this Court has followed that majority stance, affirming that no personal liability attaches to agents or supervisors under Title VII. Consequently, the Court grants the motions to dismiss filed by co-Defendants Olmo, Figueroa, Nieves, and Mercado, dismissing the Plaintiffs' Title VII claims against them with prejudice.

Regarding supplemental claims under Puerto Rico law, the Court disagrees with the co-Defendants’ argument that the dismissal of Title VII claims necessitates the dismissal of all supplemental claims. The Court asserts its ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Puerto Rico law claims, as these claims arise from the same factual circumstances as the Title VII claim. The Court cites Puerto Rican law that allows for personal liability of agents, officials, or supervisors for violations of specific Puerto Rico statutes. Therefore, it denies the motions to dismiss the Puerto Rico law claims against co-Defendants Olmo, Figueroa, Nieves, and Mercado.

In addressing co-Plaintiff Julián Rivera's claims against Metro Guard Services, Inc. (MGS), the Court rejects MGS’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Rivera, not being employed by MGS, lacks standing under Title VII. Instead, Rivera’s claims are based on Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, seeking compensatory damages for emotional harm resulting from the Defendants' actions toward his wife, Plaintiff Torres.

Puerto Rico law permits one spouse to seek damages for emotional distress caused by the injury of the other spouse, as established in Hull v. Municipality of San Juan and further supported by Santini Rivera v. Serv. Air, Inc. The court recognizes the legal right to compensation for personal suffering and mental anguish stemming from harm inflicted on relatives. Co-Plaintiff Julián Rivera's claim, based on the alleged harm to his spouse, Plaintiff Torres, is maintained, leading to the denial of co-Defendant Metro Guard Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Rivera's claims. The court also partially grants and partially denies motions from co-Defendants Olmo, Figueroa, Mercado, and Nieves, dismissing Plaintiff Torres' Title VII claims against these parties with prejudice. Claims against Metro Guard Services and supplemental claims against the other co-Defendants remain active. Additionally, a note highlights that while several circuits have ruled that supervisors cannot be held personally liable under Title VII, the Fourth Circuit allows for individual liability under specific circumstances involving control over employment conditions.